Katie Hopkins: “I believe Tommy Robinson will be killed inside the prison…”

Half A Million Sign #FreeTommy Petition

Half A Million Sign #FreeTommy Petition

The War on Tommy Robinson

Stefan Molyneux Quadrant Online May 29th 2018

Explain why white men accused of pedophilia are allowed to be photographed and questioned by reporters on court steps, while Pakistani Muslims are not. Explain why a police force that took three decades to start dealing with Muslim rape gangs was able to arrest and incarcerate a journalist within a few scant hours.

Explain why a man can be arrested for breaching the peace when no violence has taken place. To the British government: explain your actions, or open Tommy Robinson’s cell and let him walk free

The rule of law is fragile, and relies on the self-restraint of the majority. In a just society, the majority obey the law because they believe it represents universal values – moral absolutes. They obey the law not for fear of punishment, but for fear of the self-contempt that comes from doing wrong.

Continue Reading

Tommy Robinson:  ‘The elite are clearly in the process of Islamizing the West.’

T

Tucker Carlson interviews Katie Hopkins on the arrest and incarceration of Tommy Robinson.

Video Appears to Show Iran’s Foreign Minister Chanting ‘Death to America’

Published on May 27, 2018A video published Thursday appeared to show Iran’s Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif chanting “Death to America,” “Death to Britain,” and “Death to Israel” during an address by the Islamic Republic’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in Tehran.

The crowd of people, which appeared to be absent of “moderates,” also called for “death to those who oppose the rule of the Islamic jurist” and “death to Muslims who don’t support us,” which includes nearly half, if not more, of Iran’s population.class=”byline”>.

KLEIN: IRAN’S FINGERPRINTS ALL OVER GAZA ROCKET CAMPAIGN AGAINST ISRAEL

Iran’s Rouhani Going to China to Save Nuclear Deal

Iran’s Rouhani Going to China to Save Nuclear Deal

White House Official Condemns ‘Reprehensible’ Gaza Fire into Israel

White House Official Condemns ‘Reprehensible’ Gaza Fire into Israel

SONNIE JOHNSON: IF YOU THINK FARRAKHAN IS ‘F***ING NUTS,’ WAIT TILL YOU SEE LINDA SARSOUR

Exclusive: ‘Western Europe Is Consumed by Self Hate’ — German Populist Leader

 German Populist Leader Blasts Merkel, Open Borders…

…Western Europe ‘Consumed by Self Hate’ over Nazism, Colonialism…

…’We Don’t Want These Strange Refugees’

Related links:

Continued:

As children, we are told that the law is objective, fair and moral. As we grow up, though, it becomes increasingly impossible to avoid the feeling that the actual law has little to do with the Platonic stories we were told as children. We begin to suspect that the law may in fact – or at least at times – be a coercive mechanism designed to protect the powerful, appease the aggressive, and bully the vulnerable.

The arrest of Tommy Robinson is a hammer-blow to the fragile base of people’s respect for British law. The reality that he could be grabbed off the street and thrown into a dangerous jail – in a matter of hours – is deeply shocking.

Tommy was under a suspended sentence for filming on courthouse property in the past. On May 25, 2018, while live-streaming his thoughts about the sentencing of alleged Muslim child rapists, Tommy very consciously stayed away from the court steps, constantly used the word “alleged,” and checked with the police to ensure that he was not breaking the law.

Tommy yelled questions at the alleged criminals on their way into court – so what? How many times have you watched reporters shouting questions at people going in and out of courtrooms? You can find pictures of reporters pointing cameras and microphones at Rolf Harris and Gary Glitter, who were accused of similar crimes against children.

Come and see Stefan Molyneux and Lauren Southern
on their Australian Tour: www.axiomatic.events

Tommy Robinson was arrested for “breaching the peace,” which is a civil proceeding that requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Was imminent violence about to erupt from his reporting? How can Tommy Robinson have been “breaching the peace” while wandering around in the rain on a largely empty street sharing his thoughts on criminal proceedings? There were several police officers present during his broadcast, why did they allow him to break the law for so long?

Was Tommy wrong to broadcast the names of the alleged criminals? The mainstream media, including the state broadcaster, the BBC, had already named them. Why was he punished, but not them?

These are all questions that demand answers.

Even if everything done by the police or the court was perfectly legitimate and reasonable, the problem is that many people in England believe that Tommy Robinson is being unjustly persecuted by his government. The fact that he was arrested so shortly after his successful Day for Freedom event, where he gathered thousands of people in support of free speech, strikes many as a little bit more than a coincidence.

Is the law being applied fairly? Tommy Robinson has received countless death threats over the years, and has reported many of them. Did the police leap into action to track down and prosecute anyone sending those threats?

If the British government truly believes that incarcerating Tommy Robinson is legitimate, then they should call a press conference, and answer as many questions as people have, explaining their actions in detail.

As we all know, there has been no press conference. Instead of transparency, the government has imposed a publication ban – not just on the trial of the alleged child rapists, but on the arrest and incarceration of Tommy Robinson. Not only are reporters unable to ask questions, they are forbidden from even reporting the bare facts about Tommy Robinson’s incarceration.

Why? British law strains – perhaps too hard – to prevent publication of information that might influence a jury, but Tommy’s incarceration was on the order of a judge. He will not get a jury trial for 13 months imprisonment. Since there is no jury to influence, why ban reports on his arrest and punishment?

Click here for the video Britons aren’t allowed to see
by the man who has been disappeared https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTdJaHWvLbk&feature=youtu.be

Do these actions strike you as the actions of a government with nothing to hide?

Free societies can only function with a general respect for the rule of law. If the application of the law appears selective, unjust, or political, people begin to believe that the law no longer represents universal moral values. If so, what is their relationship to unjust laws? Should all laws be blindly obeyed, independent of conscience or reason? The moral progress of mankind has always manifested as resistance to injustice. Those who ran the Underground Railroad that helped escaped slaves get from America to Canada were criminals according to the law of their day. We now think of them as heroes defying injustice, because the law was morally wrong.

The inescapable perception that various ethnic and religious groups are accorded different treatment under the Western law is one of the most dangerous outcomes of the cult of diversity.

Diversity of thought, opinion, arguments and culture can be beneficial – diversity of treatment under the law fragments societies.

The blind mantra that “diversity is a strength” is an attempt to ignore the most fundamental challenge of multiculturalism, which is: if diversity is a value, what is our relationship to belief systems which do not value diversity?

If tolerance of homosexuality is a virtue, what is our relationship to belief systems that are viciously hostile to homosexuality? If equality of opportunity for women is a virtue, what about cultures and religions which oppose such equality?

And if freedom of speech is a value, what is our relationship to those who violently oppose freedom of speech?

Diversity is a value only if moral values remain constant. We need freedom of speech in part because robust debate in a free arena of ideas is our best chance of approaching the truth.

You need a team with diverse skills to build a house, but everything must rest on a strong foundation. Diversity is only a strength if it rests on universal moral values.

Is Tommy Robinson being treated fairly? If gangs of white men had spent decades raping and torturing little Muslim girls, and a justly outraged Muslim reporter was covering the legal proceedings, would he be arrested?

We all know the answer to that question. And we all know why.

Diversity of opinion is the path to truth – diversity of legal systems is the path to ruin.

If the arrest and incarceration of Tommy Robinson is just, then the government must throw open the doors and invite cross-examination from sceptics. Honestly explain what happened, and why.

Explain why elderly white men accused of pedophilia are allowed to be photographed and questioned by reporters on court steps, while Pakistani Muslims are not.

Explain why a police force that took three decades to start dealing with Muslim rape gangs was able to arrest and incarcerate a journalist within a few scant hours.

Explain why a man can be arrested for breaching the peace when no violence has taken place – or appears about to take place.

To the British government: explain your actions, or open Tommy Robinson’s cell and let him walk free.

Stefan Molyneux is the host of Freedomain Radio

5 thoughts on “Katie Hopkins: “I believe Tommy Robinson will be killed inside the prison…””

  1. The (Binary) Basics In Law:

    “Do Not Attack First,” and “You Must Pay For What You Take” (Rights only come with agreed-on, concommitant corollary Responsibilities).

    The Law – is very simple, easy to see, and so it’s easy to see when it’s broken.

    “The Law” is The Golden Rule of Law principle, which simply defines all situational morality as “Do Not Attack First.”

    After all, when one chooses to attack first, one’s own choice defines one as the predatory, criminal aggresor, and they as one’s innocent victims – there’s no two ways about it!

    Caveat: All threats are (psychological) attacks, aka bullying, intimidation, coercion, activist agitations, extortion, and, of course, “terrorism.” Physical responses to threats are legally valid.

    (Counter-)attacking second is a requirement for justice, (and even the courts do this, even years later, when the criminal is most likely no longer committing any crimes, and so is not an immanent threat at all) because the falsely-sundered, “civil” and “criminal” branches of the law agree: One must pay for what one takes! All crimes are forms of theft.

    In fact, the only time the ends every justify the means, is in defense of one’s self and/or of innocent others.

    Otherwise the means only really ever define the end results – when one chooses to lie, murder and otherwise steal to get ahead, in the end one isn’t a great success, but one will only remain a lying, murdering thief!

    From this One Law, we find our only real right is to not be attacked first, and our only real responsibility is to not attack others first. Agreeing to this ‘social contract’ is how our Western societies enabled trust, progress, and civilization.

    In other words, between two or more people, one is not allowed to do anything either TO, or FOR, anyone else, unless and until permission has been specifically granted.

    So our primary right is to self-defense, and that also means to freely speak to accuse criminals of their crimes and to call for help when attacked. This right is only voided by our own choice to irresponsibly attack (thereby innocent) others first, at which time we must pay for what we tried to take, by being (counter-)attacked second, by ‘society’ as a whole, if necessary, thus losing our freedom to the extent of the value of our attempted thefts.

    All valid laws are put as: “If you choose to attack first in these ways, then these (not necessarily proportional) responses will occur.” They are warnings, not threats, because they involve if/then cause and effect.

    Idolatrous false laws, on the other hand, are pre-emptive slanders, and so are crimes in themselves, such as gun control laws: “SINCE you own guns, SO you will use them to commit crimes, SO we must take them away from you and attack you first, to defend our selves!” They are victim-blaming attacks in themselves.

    And these laws apply equally at all levels of human interactions – from the individual, to the family, clan, tribal, state, national, empirical, and global groupings.

    Even the largest group – the state – has no right to attack any individual citizen (by reversing the proof onus) first.

    So, pretty-much by definition, a bad law IS really a crime.

    And it’s not only the right of every citizen to reject and fight crime, it’s also our basic duty to rationality and civilization.

    Just because some self-determined “authority” declares it’s their right and duty to attack others first, doesn’t mean we should put up with their criminal nonsense.

    Capisce?

    😉

  2. The best way to determine if a government is correctly acting as an insurance company serving the people, or as a tyrannical master extorting them, is self-defense. If the government insists the people have no right to defend them selves by bearing arms, then it is criminal: actively preventing them from defending them selves by attacking them first.

    (Often, legislators will engage in pointless “If you COULD commit a crime, so you WILL commit it, SO we have to legislate against it first!” which is of course really only victim-blaming slander, attacking everyone first).

    i.e: “WHEN (not “if”) you break the Law, this or these (not necessarily proportional) punishments will apply!”

    Same with restrictions on citizens’ free speech ability to defend them selves by accusing potential criminals of their crimes: if and when the government gang insists that only its minions have a right to accuse others, then it is preventing self-defense.

  3. Re: “The rule of law is fragile, and relies on the self-restraint of the majority. In a just society, the majority obey the law because they believe it represents universal values – moral absolutes. They obey the law not for fear of punishment, but for fear of the self-contempt that comes from doing wrong.

    As children, we are told that the law is objective, fair and moral. As we grow up, though, it becomes increasingly impossible to avoid the feeling that the actual law has little to do with the Platonic stories we were told as children. We begin to suspect that the law may in fact – or at least at times – be a coercive mechanism designed to protect the powerful, appease the aggressive, and bully the vulnerable.”

    No amount of force or police or laws are necessary among free citizens who can and will govern themselves, while the opposite is: no amount of force or police or laws are enough for a people who CANNOT – or will not – govern themselves.

    😉

  4. Finally: WHY do we need politicians at all?!

    The police are supposed to enforce and obey the laws, not those who make them! So every time a cop obeys an unjust order to “stand down” he or she is acting as a criminal, enabling crimes!

    As time goes by, over the years and centuries, each and every politician is expected to make new laws. When populations increase, and new voting constituencies are carved out of existing ones over time, more and more politicians are hired to make an ever exponentially increasing number of laws.

    And those laws, at least incrementally, always result in more and more restrictions on individual citizens’ property rights, inflicting more and more responsibilities (slavery) on them.

    This process of ever-increasing slavery, as part of the current “democratic” political system of governance, is inevitable.

  5. All forms of “government” – even “democracies” – are protection rackets.

    ALL are at least loosely based on the “positivist law” (criminal extortion and slavery) model:

    Positivist (or libertine, liberal “law;” aka crime) in sanctioning people (or at least, ‘authorities’) to do things both TO and FOR people, “for their own good,” without getting their express consent first, will lead to criminalizing hurt feelings and to slavery. Positivist “law” is always really only ever a CRIME.

    Positivist law is also divisive, in that it sanctions imposing both rights without responsibilities, and responsibilities without rights – usually by using slander to accuse and extort “oppressors” of “victims.”

    It inevitably leads to such false divisions as the criminal “versus” civil law venues; but then it’s only simple math and physics to realize that any house divided cannot stand, and diversity is not strength.

    “Positivist law” (crime) begins with a presumption of guilt: that something has to be done for someone else’s “own good” BECAUSE it isnt’ already being done by either the person in question or by any others, to the supposer’s own personal satisfaction! It presumes all other people to be incompetent and helpless victims who are unable to manage their own lives and affairs.

    Thus all “positivist law” is criminal extortion based on victimology.

Comments are closed.