Extremist strategy

by .Guest.. 30.09.14 17:10

Opinions please on how far these proposals of Theresa May will go if implemented. As anyone who dares to question TM`s version of events is designated a "hater" we could find that our right to speak out on open forums is severely curtailed.
The tip of the iceberg?

by Guest 30.09.14 17:19

I think we should always combat the word "hater".

When you see it... OBJECT.. and say "don't you mean skeptic?"

They want to kill internet dissent.

Don't let them.

by unchained melody 30.09.14 17:21

We will see more and more of this in the run up to 2017 when the full implementation of the NWO fascist/luciferian state finally becomes reality.

Thought Crime.

shhhh

;-)

by **Tony Bennett** 30.09.14 18:26

Thank you anon357 for bringing this story to the forum. I was going to post a link earlier to the BBC story on the subject of how the Conservatives propose to combat extremism. This will be a longish post in several parts:

1. My concerns as featured in the BBC report (link: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] )

I've extracted the following quotes which cause me concern:

QUOTE

A future Conservative government would seek new powers to ban extremist groups and curb the activities of "harmful" individuals, Theresa May has said.

Banning orders and "extreme disruption" orders will feature in the party's 2015 election manifesto, the home secretary told the party's Birmingham conference.

In her speech, the home secretary also:

Attacked the Liberal Democrats for thwarting attempts to introduce new data monitoring powers
Said the Home Office would take control of all of the government's extremism policies

The new measures will be targeted at people and groups who "stay just within the law but spread poisonous hatred", she said.

The decision to bring extremism strategy into the Home Office is already policy - and it is about more than rearranging the machinery of government: It's a symbol of the tensions inside Whitehall over whether every previous attempt to combat extremism has been a muddled flop.

At the moment, organisations can only be banned if there is evidence of links to terrorism.

Under the Tories' new proposals, groups that cannot currently be proscribed could be subject to banning orders should ministers "reasonably believe" that they intend to incite religious or racial hatred, to threaten democracy or if there is a pressing need to protect the public from harm, either from a risk of violence, public disorder, harassment or other criminal acts.

The granting of a ban, which would be subject to immediate review by the High Court, would make membership or funding of the organisation concerned a criminal offence.

The police would also be given new powers to apply to a court to impose extreme disruption orders on individuals, using the same criteria.

This could result in those targeted being stopped from taking part in public protests, from being present at all in certain public locations, from associating with named people, from using of conventional broadcast media and from "obtaining any position of authority in an institution where they would have influence over vulnerable individuals or children".

Breach of the restrictions - which would be time limited - would be a criminal offence.

Liberal Democrat peer Lord Carlile, the former independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, told BBC Radio 4's Today programme he did not think some of the measures were sufficiently tough, and called on Mrs May to reintroduce powers to relocate terror suspects to other parts of the country.

UNQUOTE

2. These quotes from the article seemed a bit more reassuring, however:

QUOTE

Conservative MP Dominic Raab told BBC News there was already a "very wide criminal basis" to prosecute extremist groups.

"I think you need to be very wary about criminalising thoughts and views", he said.
Former Attorney General Dominic Grieve said there was a risk new measures could "simply fuel resentment".

He told BBC Radio 4's The World at One: "If there is to be any restriction on the freedom of expression outside the criminal law - we have to tread very carefully."
Labour has questioned the effectiveness of the strategy, saying all individuals returning from the Middle East should have to undergo a programme of de-radicalisation.

"Liberal Democrats will continue to oppose the Tories' obsessive intrusion into people's lives," he added.
UKIP said the moves paved the way for governments to "block free speech", while campaign group Big Brother Watch said it was "wholly wrong" to label someone as an extremist without a "due legal process".

UNQUOTE

3. My own concern with the issue of so-called 'extremism' - branding the 'creationist' explanation for origins as 'extremist'

As almost all agree, there are basically two rival explantions for origins:

(a) big bang 13 billion years ago followed by life forming by chance in some primeval soup 1 to 4 billion years ago and everything evolving into today's spectacular variety of animal and plant life ever since, culminating in man 1 to 3 million years ago

(b) special acts of divine creation in the relatively recent past.

I believe (b) is correct.

In 2009, the Guardian newspaper reported (correctly) on an opinion poll which showed that around half of all Britons did NOT believe in the theory of evolution:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Yet, recently, new Education Minister Nicky Morgan pronounced 'creationism as an 'extremist' belief:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

QUOTE

Nurseries are at risk of being taken over by religious extremists, the Education Secretary will warn as she announces that toddlers are to be taught “fundamental British values”.

In her first major policy announcement, Nicky Morgan will say that local authorities will be obliged to use new powers to strip nurseries of their funding if they are found to “promote extremist views”.

She will also say that toddlers should be taught “fundamental British values in an age-appropriate way” as part of a drive to protect children from religious radicals.

Nurseries that teach creationism as scientific fact will be ineligible for taxpayer funding, under the new rules.

Mrs Morgan’s announcement comes in the wake of the “Trojan Horse” plot by Islamist radicals to take over state schools in Birmingham.

UNQUOTE

++++++++++++

Now (since 1 September this year), she is forcing all school academies and free schools to sign up to this charter (extracts below), with draconian penalties against anyone who, like myself, agrees that there is a great deal of scientific evidence in favour of special creation:

==========

New Funding Agreement (extracts)

23E) The parties acknowledge that clauses 2.43 and 2.44 of the Funding Agreement [which preclude the teaching of pseudoscience and require the teaching of evolution] apply to all academies. They explicitly require that pupils are taught about the theory of evolution, and prevent academy trusts from teaching ‘creationism’ as scientific fact.

23F) ‘Creationism’, for the purposes of clauses 2.43 and 2.44 of the Funding Agreement and clause 23E above, is any doctrine or theory which holds that natural biological processes cannot account for the history, diversity, and complexity of life on earth and therefore rejects the scientific theory of evolution. The parties acknowledge that Creationism, in this sense, is rejected by most mainstream Churches and religious traditions, including the major providers of state funded schools such as the [Anglican] [Catholic] Churches, as well as the scientific community. It does not accord with the scientific consensus or the very large body of established scientific evidence; nor does it accurately and consistently employ the scientific method, and as such it should not be presented to pupils at the Academy as a scientific theory.
23G) The parties recognise that the teaching of creationism is not part of prevailing practice in the English education system, but acknowledge that it is however important that all schools are clear about what is expected in terms of the curriculum which they need to provide. The parties further recognise that the requirement on every academy and free school to provide a broad and balanced curriculum, in any case prevents the teaching of creationism as evidence based theory in any academy or free school.

23H) The Secretary of State acknowledges that clauses 2.43 and 2.44 of the Funding Agreement, and clauses 23E and 23G above do not prevent discussion of beliefs about the origins of the Earth and living things, such as creationism, in Religious Education, as long as it is not presented as a valid alternative to established scientific theory.

===

I might get a banning order if these laws go through...

Edited to add:

anon357, were you aware of these extracts from David Cameron's recent speech at the United Nations?

QUOTE

Extracts >>>

"Preachers who claim not to encourage violence, but whose worldview can be used as a justification for it [are to be thought of as terrorists, like the ones claiming to be beheading people]. We know that worldview. The peddling of lies that 9/11 was somehow a Jewish plot or that the 7/7 London attacks were staged...Let's be clear, to deal with the ideology of extremism, we must deal with ALL forms of extremism not just violent extremism...We must stop the non-violent extremists inciting hatred in our schools, our universities and yes, even our prisons....Of course, some will argue that this is not compatible with free speech and intellectual inquiry, but I ask you, would we sit back and allow right-wing extremists, Nazis or Klu Klux Klansman to recruit on our univeristy campuses?...Finally, when the safety and security
of our people is at stake, we must be uncompromising in our response. That starts at home..."

UNQUOTE

So all those YouTube videos suggesting that there's more to the 7/7 London bombings than meets the eye will be banned?

by Guest 30.09.14 19:24

Tony Bennett wrote:So all those YouTube videos suggesting that there's more to the 7/7 London bombings than meets the eye will be banned?

Indeed.

I'm skeptical about the 7/7 official story. I think there is more we have not been told.

What does that make me?

by The....truth 30.09.14 19:41

Bluebag, clearly that makes you a hater.

Under the Tories' new proposals, groups that cannot currently be proscribed could be subject to banning orders should ministers "reasonably believe" that they intend to incite religious or racial hatred, to threaten democracy or if there is a pressing need to protect the public from harm, either from a risk of violence, public disorder, harassment or other criminal acts.

So, a minister or the police may reasonably believe that you and your group of haters on this site, with a leader already identified and named, may be causing harassment (that is what they arrested Spivey for a few weeks ago). So you will get a banning order, leading to criminal trial should you continue.

Say goodbye to free speech. Say goodbye to challenging the Mcstory. Say goodbye to ministers allowing peado investigations into ministers, police or media luvvies.

This is very very bad stuff.

by Guest 30.09.14 20:10

MAGNA CARTA.

HABEUS CORPUS.

Dangerous times.

by Doug D 30.09.14 20:17

This will take 15 minutes out of your life, if you can stick it all.

Otherwise its from about 4.40 - 6.20 where he talks about 'non-violent extremists'.

by Okeydokey 30.09.14 20:27

I don't like Sharia law, creationism or 9-11 conspiracy theories but I am with Voltaire in wishing to defend the right of people to believe in such things, and to expound them in public.

This proposed new law is (a) bogus and (b) dangerous. It's bogus in that at the same time millions of children will still be allowed to attend the parallel school system where they learn that inf'idels are dirty and unpleasant people who you shouldn't make friends with. Nothing will be done to stop any of that. It's dangerous because it is a very slippery slope. It wasn't long ago that the Prime Minister was describing UKIP as extremist.

by **Tony Bennett** 30.09.14 20:29

Thetruth wrote:So, a minister or the police may reasonably believe that you and your group of haters on this site, with a leader already identified and named...

Er, hang on a minute.

You do mean Jill, the forum-owner, don't you?

Not me I hope???

by Guest 30.09.14 20:30

Dangerous Extremist.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by Guest 30.09.14 22:12

Tony Bennett wrote:

New Funding Agreement (extracts)

23E) The parties acknowledge that clauses 2.43 and 2.44 of the Funding Agreement [which preclude the teaching of pseudoscience and require the teaching of evolution] apply to all academies. They explicitly require that pupils are taught about the theory of evolution, and prevent academy trusts from teaching ‘creationism’ as scientific fact.

23F) ‘Creationism’, for the purposes of clauses 2.43 and 2.44 of the Funding Agreement and clause 23E above, is any doctrine or theory which holds that natural biological processes cannot account for the history, diversity, and complexity of life on earth and therefore rejects the scientific theory of evolution. The parties acknowledge that Creationism, in this sense, is rejected by most mainstream Churches and religious traditions, including the major providers of state funded schools such as the [Anglican] [Catholic] Churches, as well as the scientific community. It does not accord with the scientific consensus or the very large body of established scientific evidence; nor does it accurately and consistently employ the scientific method, and as such it should not be presented to pupils at the Academy as a scientific theory.
23G) The parties recognise that the teaching of creationism is not part of prevailing practice in the English education system, but acknowledge that it is however important that all schools are clear about what is expected in terms of the curriculum which they need to provide. The parties further recognise that the requirement on every academy and free school to provide a broad and balanced curriculum, in any case prevents the teaching of creationism as evidence based theory in any academy or free school.

23H) The Secretary of State acknowledges that clauses 2.43 and 2.44 of the Funding Agreement, and clauses 23E and 23G above do not prevent discussion of beliefs about the origins of the Earth and living things, such as creationism, in Religious Education, as long as it is not presented as a valid alternative to established scientific theory.

Interesting that these proposals are for academy and free school funding. My daughter goes to a Methodist primary school and I can report that the teaching of creationism as, ahem, gospel is alive and well in these parts. However there is a clear plan to set the educational agenda by the simple expedient of "Straying from our path = no money." Presumably that then leaves schools free to find outside funding from anybody with their own version of the truth to promote.

Incidentally we are most certainly NOT Methodists and neither, as far as I am aware, are any of the pupils or staff...

Recently she arrived home with an expensive looking and very vividly illustrated bible and consequently she is now quite obsessed with the story of Elijah being taken up to heaven aboard a flaming chariot. I think I might leave it for a bit before I break it to her that this level of service isn't universal.

by Guest 01.10.14 9:10

Theresa May: ". I want to see new civil powers to target extremists who stay within the law but still spread poisonous hatred."

People within the law.

This is very worrying.

Also people who “disrupt the democratic process” and “undermine democracy”."

All very subjective.

That's why we have laws and rights and courts to test them in.

Slippery slope.

by The....truth 01.10.14 10:33

Tony Bennett wrote:
Thetruth wrote:So, a minister or the police may reasonably believe that you and your group of haters on this site, with a leader already identified and named...
Er, hang on a minute.

You do mean Jill, the forum-owner, don't you?

Not me I hope???

Hello Tony,

It doesn't matter what I myself mean.

What I am seeing is a concerted drift in the terminology of those who would shut down free speech and apply Leveson type political ontrols of the UK Internet. It obviously riles TM that they cannot easily do this. But the application of pressure, via legal inaudibles or via other means is already being used to stop discussion, thus the Mccann thoughts shutdown over DNA worries IMO, and the arrest of the awful Spivey for publishing his own insights and analysis.

Increasingly I see the words haters and leaders being used. This aligns with proposed future laws which would be used to stifle free speech in the UK.

They have already named you twice before the judge in libel trial in Portugal, as a specific person 'leading' a group.

From the Summers book comments, you can see that haters and leaders are also being identified:

Pamela Gurney It's not for me to give you answers Sally. Do a FOI like Bennett is so keen to do and see what the response is then.
The police already have the measure of you people and your ring leaders. September 14 at 8:27am • Edited

Something is afoot. Once again military non threats are being used to impose ever stricter controls over the knowledge available to people in the UK. IMO the bad people are being lifted into positions of power. Corruption and illegal and odious practices are being covered up because some of the people in power, the establishment, are the very people who should be investigated. In my opinion.

So watch out forum owners and thought leaders. Soon a Gurney will be able to ask for a court order to stop you publishing information and opinions which are 'hateful'. There will a super inaudible to prevent knowledge of the order itself. Websites will be closed. People will go to prison. Silence will reign and thus there will be no corruption any more, or at least no sight nor sound of it.

This is of course only my opinion.

by Guest 01.10.14 10:56

Thetruth wrote:

This is of course only my opinion.

Great post Thetruth.

I found Jim Gamble's tweeted use of the word haters particularly chilling. Looks like it is going to enter the popular lexicon as a term of combined accusation and conviction, such as tends to happen during witch-hunts.

by aiyoyo 01.10.14 11:23

Clay Regazzoni wrote:
Thetruth wrote:

This is of course only my opinion.

Great post Thetruth.

I found Jim Gamble's tweeted use of the word haters particularly chilling. Looks like it is going to enter the popular lexicon as a term of combined accusation and conviction, such as tends to happen during witch-hunts.

Quite right.
Wonder whether he includes people speaking against Jimmy Savile, Max Clifford, Rolf Harris etc as "haters" ?

It's just not befitting of someone in his position errr.... ex position.

by Guest 01.10.14 11:29

Free speech, reasoned skepticism and critical thinking is in their sights.

The want to clamp down on anyone with a different view to them or anyone who questions what they do.

We are going back to the dark ages.

by Sam S 01.10.14 16:13

There are more than enough laws to combat "terrorism", and there has been for many years. This is all to do with shutting down the flow of information the government dont want to get out to free-thinking people. The sheeple will clap and cheer "we are safe" as the noose tightens around their necks. Fools.

by sammyc 01.10.14 21:51

Sam S wrote: The sheeple will clap and cheer "we are safe" as the noose tightens around their necks. Fools.

'There's none so blind as those who will not see'.

by The....truth 02.10.14 9:08

Raab says.......he broad powers of proposed Extremism Disruption Orders (EDO) could be abused. Those engaged in passionate debates – such as Christians objecting to gay marriage – could find themselves slapped down. Monarchists or communists (like the late militant union leader, Bob Crow) could be swept up for peacefully expressing their political views. And while we should resist Sharia trumping British law, should we really be outlawing clerics who debate the issue?

See
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Note well that the Laws being planned will allow a minister, a policeman, maybe a citizen, to apply for a court order against
a 'hater'. Non compliance with said order will be a criminal offence.

Read also Raab' book, An Assault on Liberty

We can already see the apparent organized assault on the haters who support MBM.
They are approaching on many flanks.

by Guest 02.10.14 10:37

The assault has started today.

We are going back to the dark ages.

by Guest 02.10.14 10:50

BlueBag wrote:The assault has started today.

We are going back to the dark ages.

So was this the plan all along? Seven years in the making?

by Guest 02.10.14 10:52

They'll be locking us up in dark rooms and whispering "confess" all day through a letter box soon.

George Orwell was a prophet.

by Angelique 02.10.14 10:57

Clay Regazzoni wrote:
BlueBag wrote:The assault has started today.

We are going back to the dark ages.

So was this the plan all along? Seven years in the making?

Quite possible. They - whoever they are - are holding the strings.

by Liz Eagles 02.10.14 11:09

Clay Regazzoni wrote:
BlueBag wrote:The assault has started today.

We are going back to the dark ages.

So was this the plan all along? Seven years in the making?

Madeleine McCann (remember her?) is used and abused by the government, the media and those who promote themselves in the arena of child saviours. I've watched this case for a long time - from the Leveson Inquiry to Hacked-Off, to Sky and the Rupert Empire.

Madeleine the Abused Child should be the real book title.

Today, Madeleine is being abused by Sky/the government/media monitors to promote control of social media. Not a single age-progression photograph of Madeleine just as there is never a single age-progression photograph of Madeleine in any media interview by her parents. Not one single photograph has been published today about 'a live and findable child' which is what her parents and their private limited company believe.

Today is all about trolls and media control - bring out Madeleine - she's the icon.

Madeleine - the little girl continually abused by the media and those who continue to make money from her to their own ends.

How shameful is this.