The crackdown on free speech continues in the United Kingdom as officials use recent rioting to justify a roundup of citizens who they view as “pushing harmful and hateful beliefs.” The government is ramping up arrests of those with “extremist ideologies” in the latest wave of arrests. The crackdown includes those accused of misogynist views.In my book, “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage,” I discuss how difficult it is to get a free people to give up freedoms. They have to be afraid, very afraid. For that reason, governments tend to attack free speech during periods of public anger or fear.
That pattern is playing out, yet again, in the United Kingdom. The recent anti-immigration riots have given officials a renewed opportunity to use anti-free speech laws to target those with opposing views.
For years, I have been writing about the decline of free speech in the United Kingdom and the steady stream of arrests.A man was convicted for sending a tweet while drunk referring to dead soldiers. Another was arrested for an anti-police t-shirt. Another was arrested for calling the Irish boyfriend of his ex-girlfriend a “leprechaun.” Yet another was arrested for singing “Kung Fu Fighting.” A teenager was arrested for protesting outside of a Scientology center with a sign calling the religion a “cult.”Last year, Nicholas Brock, 52, was convicted of a thought crime in Maidenhead, Berkshire. The neo-Nazi was given a four-year sentence for what the court called his “toxic ideology” based on the contents of the home he shared with his mother in Maidenhead, Berkshire.
While most of us find Brock’s views repellent and hateful, they were confined to his head and his room. Yet, Judge Peter Lodder QC dismissed free speech or free thought concerns with a truly Orwellian statement: “I do not sentence you for your political views, but the extremity of those views informs the assessment of dangerousness.”
Lodder lambasted Brock for holding Nazi and other hateful values:
“[i]t is clear that you are a right-wing extremist, your enthusiasm for this repulsive and toxic ideology is demonstrated by the graphic and racist iconography which you have studied and appeared to share with others…”
Even though Lodder agreed that the defendant was older, had limited mobility, and “there was no evidence of disseminating to others,” he still sent him to prison for holding extremist views.
After the sentencing Detective Chief Superintendent Kath Barnes, Head of Counter Terrorism Policing South East (CTPSE), warned others that he was going to prison because he “showed a clear right-wing ideology with the evidence seized from his possessions during the investigation….We are committed to tackling all forms of toxic ideology which has the potential to threaten public safety and security.”
“Toxic ideology” also appears to be the target of Ireland’s proposed Criminal Justice (Incitement to Violence or Hatred and Hate Offences) law. It covers the possession of material deemed hateful. The law is a free speech nightmare. The law makes it a crime to possess “harmful material” as well as “condoning, denying or grossly trivialising genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and crimes against peace.” The law expressly states the intent to combat “forms and expressions of racism and xenophobia by means of criminal law.”
The Brock case proved, as feared, a harbinger of what was to come. The home secretary, Yvette Cooper, has vowed to crack down on people “pushing harmful and hateful beliefs.” That includes what she calls extreme misogyny.
Cooper said that the problem revealed by the recent protests was “gaps in the current system” and stressed that “it’s not OK any more to ignore the massive growing threat caused by online hatred towards women and for us to ignore it because we’re worried about the line, rather than making sure the line is in the right place as we would do with any other extremist ideology.”
She added: “For too long governments have failed to address the rise in extremism, both online and on our streets, and we’ve seen the number of young people radicalised online grow. Hateful incitement of all kinds fractures and frays the very fabric of our communities and our democracy.”
For free speech advocates, it is chilling to hear UK officials state that they have been too lax on free speech in the past and must now take censorship and arrests more aggressively.
The United Kingdom has a myriad of laws criminalizing speech with vague terms allowing for arbitrary enforcement. For example, Public Order Act 1986 prohibits any expressions of racial hatred, defined as hatred against a group of persons by reason of the group’s color, race, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origins.
Section 18 of the Act specifically includes any speech that is “threatening, abusive, or insulting.” An arrest does not have to be based on a showing of intent to “stir up racial hatred,” but can merely be based on a charge that “having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby.”
For those Americans who have remained silent during as this anti-free speech movement grows, you need only to look to the United Kingdom to see what this movement means for our “indispensable right.” That wave has now reached our shores and it will require each one of us to defend a right that defines us all.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. He is the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage” (Simon & Schuster).
This is what happens when 70% of young women become neurotic, umarriageable pussy hats and vote that way. That’s a “blue wall” that’s hard to overcome. You see this same pattern among young women in every major Western country now, and it’s been growing for at least fifteen years. You can blame media and academia for this brainwashing.
The Handmaid’s Tale is NOT a documentary. There isn’t a racist under every rock. If these women had to spend just two hours in divorce court as young fathers, they might understand that everybody feels a little persecuted by the law.
Making absurd claims is how Cotton Mather encouraged murder during the Salem witch trials. Instead of young women screaming “Witch,” now they scream “Racist!” but it’s the same hysterical psychology.
And let me offer a little balance to my remarks. A lot of these young women are not the purple-haired weirdos you might see on Tik-Tok. I know because I have several in my extended family. They can be beautiful and generally kind but still believe the most toxic monsters in the faculty lounge. These young women are also NOT very happy. They are misled, and to some extent we have to own it and help them. In the meantime, we have to wake up and vote against the fraudulent utopia they want to embrace.
Most Germans were decent people, but too many still voted for Hitler. Men and married women need to push back against this leftwing lunacy before this country becomes a perverse, tyrannical gynocracy. London has fallen. We’re next.
I typically date women much younger than me, and can attest to this phenomenon. There are many factors, but one which I have observed all too frequently. The intolerance. In order to have any social life with female friends, young women MUST adhere to the orthodoxy. No other viewpoints are tolerated. When I finally reach one with the evidence of their easily disprovable lies, they will accept it, but they will NEVER attempt to share it with their friends. They know better the costs.
That does not surprise me at all. You just described the anthropology of the The View.
Diogenes: You have perfectly nailed it. Though not completely. Males the likes of Jamie Raskin (my favorite lunatic whipping boy) are certainly in the mix as well. There are millions of these types who do not wish the culture to be encumbered by conservative, or God-forbid, conservative Christian ideology. Soon, it will be, “Oh you don’t agree with abortions up to birth, off to the gulag with you!”
@Diogenes: The 1960s brought a wave of ideas that didn’t deliver as promised. Life entails work, family, and a dignified death. To anticipate more is to invite disappointment.
You mean a government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you have?
And will.
And when will the nation announce the Caliphate?
The greatest threat to freedom of speech and freedom of thought in this Republic is the indifference of the citizenry to the threat. Insouciance is never a good response to danger.
….We are committed to
tackling all forms ofour toxic ideology whichhas the potential to threatenis an active threat to public safety and security.There, fixed it for him.
“The crackdown on free speech continues in the United Kingdom . . .” (JT)
It used to be said that: “The sun never sets on the British Empire.”
Tragically, it is now setting on the country itself.
To the faux Brit who asserts that rights like free speech are merely “human constructs:”
You are reaping the horrors of that irrational premise.
What I find interesting is contemplating the question: how do people become like this? I mean the people who in all respects resemble the members of “the party” of the novel 1984. Violate others civil liberties. Yet they congratulate themselves on saving “our democracy”. Grim. Humorless. Self congratulatory without any self knowledge whatsoever — in fact, without much knowledge of anything.
I hope we can resist this rush to tyranny, but I worry it can’t be done without some expressing some amount of hate. You know, that hate that the haters hate.
Sorry, I don’t have a problem with overtly racist speech being, well, let’s just call it ‘heavily edited’.
Or in other words, you don’t mind censorship so long as its applied to speech you disagree with. If you mean that principle to be applied broadly, I think you’re right to be sorry for that opinion, as its the kind of thinking that enables and can lead to all kinds of oppression. You are of course free (for the moment) to think what you like, but I’d suggest you try thinking about the implications of your views as a chess player would – try to think as many moves ahead as you can. Who defines ‘overtly racist speech’? What are the rules by which it is censored? What is the penalty for defying the censorship? What ensures that the rules will be applied uniformly (ie. protects ALL races)? How will you express your non-racist views if the authorities (media, police, courts) nonetheless claim they are ‘overtly racist’?
Trying to put words in people’s mouths is a blatant form of censorship. I can see you fancy yourself as being good at that tactic….
I just recognize it as censorship.
But thank you for telling me what I can, and can’t think. Question: when you do this, doesn’t it occur to you how anti free speech (and pro censorship) your tactics are?
I don’t think the first “anonymous” put any words in your mouth. Clearly, his point was that “overtly racist” (your words) is an arbitrary standard that is impossible to define that appears to be based mostly upon whatever the govt chooses to feel offended by today. Furthermore, no one is either censoring you or telling you what you should think. In fact, what he is telling you is precisely the opposite. You should have the freedom to express any moronic idea you choose, but let’s avoid making it public policy.
Nah, when someone says “in other words…” and then says something you didn’t say it’s absolutely putting words in someone’s mouth. As is extending out what they said into a policy statement. From a rhetorical standpoint it’s referred to as building a straw man fallacy….
All I said, is, well, what I said. I don’t mind overt racism being heavily edited. If i meant what you’ve attributed to me I would’ve actually said it.
Hey, some slaves stayed on the plantation. Enjoy your servitude
Slaves staying on the plantation? You do know that the thing that the Royal Navy did in 1812 that most upset the gentlefolk of Virginia and other east coast states was freeing every slave that could be found when the Marines raided the American shoreline? Then offering the freed slaves the chance to serve in the Marines, with a musket and uniform, and join in future raids. All because Turley’s great hero, President Madison, had started a pointless war against Britain, supposedly to defend US rights but really a miserable and failed attempt to conquer Canada.
Oh, and it was the same Royal Navy that, at great cost, successfully rid the world of the seaborne slave trade, much to the displeasure of American slave owners. We all had the sin of slavery on our conscience, it was the British who actually set about expunging that guilt, and did not need to fight a civil war in the process.
Not a good way for you to try to seize the moral high ground. old bean.
@Oliver Reeder
They should teach that in school here. It would provide an interesting perspective on our history but I suspect the anti-CRT crowd would lose their minds.
Look up HMS Black Joke sometime. In her short career of just four years before her timbers rotted beyond repair (she had been built in Baltimore, obviously not one of the US yards’ better efforts), no other single ship did more to destroy the slave trade, capturing something like 13 or 14 slave ships. A Brazilian operated slave ship, she was captured by the Royal Navy and then pressed into service to hunt down other slavers. In one firefight, a 14 year old Midshipman had to take command after his commander was wounded; he won the action and rescued nearly 500 slaves, though sadly many subsequently died from their ill treatment by the slavers.
-straight outa Wikipedia!
I learned about the good ship Black Joke as a young Midshipman before t’internet, let alone Wikipedia, was a thing.
Wow, and 50 years later, your memory can spout out those details!
The Wipe twins, A$$ and D!ck (George and Oliver) arrived early today, didn’t they?
You get seriously triggered by those two don’t you? They are the more mature commenters.
^^^^Gaslighting
+100
“. . . much to the displeasure of American slave owners.”
Would those be the same Southern slave owners that Britain supported during America’s Civil War?
Yes, they would be. And also the same slave ships that were undoubtedly being insured by Lloyds. The British had a nice little racket going. One hand gave, the other one took it away.
There wouldn’t be a hip hop industry if that were the case. Has anyone considered the hate and violence espoused in rap music? How about that aspect of it or Hollyweird?
Rap music was borne as a protest against oppression.
So was the first amendment now wasn’t it?!
Same old troll occupying Turleyville daily. Just look at the content of the comments, the obsessive compulsive tendencies to inject himself and the ostentatious behavior exhibited. Response to every other comment, kind of hard to hide a self bloviating narcissist with a new weekly name.
Thanks for the foxsplain.
Hip hop would be fine as whites have always controlled the distribution channels in the effort to profit off black musical ingenuity. One thing abusers never try to do: that would be to destroy the market that feeds them.
I appreciate the detailed revelation of the horrific events in Great Britain that threaten to spread to our own shores. However, I want to focus on one important aspect of the issue. The weaponization of The Law. Professor Turley points out that this depravity is being carried out under the protective umbrella of a “myriad of laws” authorizing the abuse of liberty itself. Laws are made by people, enforced by people, and abused by people. The Law is a weapon. Remove the weapon and the abuse of Liberty is no longer sanctified and Freedom reigns. Our only question is whether we attack the Law, which is the weapon, or the people who use the Law to attack Liberty. The former is a benign approach. The latter is fraught with danger. The window of opportunity is closing. The time is short.
The following might be “threatening, abusive, or insulting”. I’ll take my chances.
At the time of Christopher Columbus’ travels, what we know today as the country of India was called, referred to, named, as Hindustan. In his writings, Mr. Columbus described the people he met in the New World as “una gente en Dios”, translated as “a people in God”. “En Dios”— Indios. Indians.
I’m ready to serve my time. Preferably at Cotswolds.
J
@J
People in India still refer to it as Hindustan. It’s the ‘counterpart’ to Pakistan. People in India don’t call their film industry ‘Bollywood’, either, as an aside.
India and Hindu have exactly the same etymology from a Proto Indo European word, via both Greek and Sanskrit, meaning big river. The Greeks embraced the name, as the great river we now know as the Indus was the high point of Alexander’s conquests, although later Greeks penetrated far further into the sub-continent and there was even an Indo-Greek kingdom embracing parts of what are now Afghanistan and Pakistan around the time of Christ’s birth. The difference is really that the aspirated initial I found in ancient Greek dropped out of use in western languages, thus losing the phonetic H at the beginning of the word.
Our Founders decided to break away from Britain, leaving to them an aristocratic, status-from-birth autocracy which one also could say had come very far in civilizing men and women compared to elsewhere.
In America, we like to think our system is still more advanced based on a post-racial, egalitarian meritocracy. However, there are signs of decline too obvious to ignore….the failure of pair-bonding and marriage among 20-somethings, the low birth rate, the deaths of despair (fentanyl), brazen criminality, chem pollution, falling sperm counts, social media distractions from serious purpose. Escapism.
Every generation of Americans has to rebalance freedom and responsibility in light of constant technological, economic, social and geopolitical change. The freedom part is easy to define….it’s the responsibility part that is harder to pin down. In regards to public speech, just getting people to think about responsibilities is almost impossible. For example, the taking up of militant, infowarfare speech tactics like doxxing? There are limits.
It is what tyrants do
The UK is reliving the 1500’s. Blasphemy laws in the UK; imprisonment is already the order of the day. Next, floggings, burning heretics at the stake, public hangings. I think the UK is now on paar with Isl*mistic societies. God help the Britains.
Yeah, and to think how much the Brits appreciated Nazi history and now emulate it.
Do you mean Britons? Idiot.
You probably think St Patrick was Irish.
and we probably think you are a trolling plant
* this is a rehash of a prior article.
* shadow USA government is none other than the existing bureaucrats. Kamala without a single vote from the citizenry has been installed. As Biden was uninstalled and kicked to the curb he wasn’t even given a prime time slot but bumped off to a midnight showing. Oh yes, we love you Joe.
The bureaucracy simply moved Harris into the presidents candidate slot. Gavin Newsom with his incredible declaration of California casts all its votes for Kamala Harris? What votes? None were taken. Newsom part of the bureau California.
Why? Because every unelected bureaucrat and appointed official can just keep their jobs! There’s no turnover! It’s job security. Harris couldn’t get the nomination on her own . She’s installed.
Wake up! Who’s counting the votes. DJT was and is correct. He won the last election.
* it’s nothing but a fast buck. Newsom moved out of Sacramento. He’s in hiding.
What a tragedy. Anyone stepping into that bureaucratic snake pit at the federal level would need to pink slip all of them and then who would take their places? Some blue states are the same bureaucratic pits.
You’ve installed the communist central committee. Hey, Ms Letitia James, still got your eye on Trump Tower? Someone must have tipped her off— Trump Tower is the art of the deal. What a laugh.
And as ill conceived as that previous effort.
Prof Turley really should stick to US law, US Constitution, US society. Trying to stoke fears that laws in Britain, which temper free speech with maintaining law and peaceful society, and which are regularly revisited by a Parliament free to do so, unshackled by being saddled with a sacrosanct document that is so very difficult to amend, despite the fact that society is changed beyond recognition, or that its Framers were so respectful of “natural rights” that they owned fellow human beings as chattels, somehow threaten America is at best facile, at worst dishonest, Is he really so desperate for material to fuel his obsession with free speech that he has to look beyond the shores of the USA to misrepresent British cases?
Oh, I am forgetting, he is desperate to sell a book.
If Prof Turley actually knew anything about English law, he would know, for example, that Peter Lodder is a KC, not a QC. Because he would know what KC and QC mean, and that there are presently no QCs due to the passing of Her Majesty.
There are aspects of US law that many of us find inimical to the maintenance of a free, lawful and respectful society. The Second Amendment is one. Capital punishment, at least when those executed are disproportionately ill educated, possibly mentally sub normal, ethnic minorities.
@’Oliver’
Tosh! Tosh, I say! The Professor is like finding a sticky plaster in my bangers and mash! Rubbish! Mental! Get me a pint and some marmalade and fish pie! Stiff upper lip! Bollocks!
“Sticking plaster”, not “sticky plaster”. “Mental” is no longer an acceptable term of abuse. Marmalade with fish pie?
Simple, very basic mistakes; difficult to explain from someone who boasts of how he is so deeply attuned to British life and mannerisms.
Better luck next time, you silly little troll. 🙂
‘George’ when your fake Brit character runs its course
can you be an Eskimo next time?
Or an African tribesman who speaks with clicks of the tongue?
This is not George, it is EB. George is too dumb to pull this off. EB is a “writer”. Faking characters is his game.
@Anon
No doubt. Parlez vous troll? The second amendment nonsense is just the limit. Tentacles of the DNC: is this really the best you can do?
How about as an entertainer who modulates his flatulence to form words? Oh, wait, he already talks out his a$$.
Boo and sheet. I actually know actual British people and have extended family in London and you are absurd. I have played the British version of Trivial Pursuit, even. I think your experience with the UK extends all the way to your nearest Manhattan coffee shop and their free wifi + whatever talking points the DNC sent you to collect your paycheck. Pretending to be British may very well be your own personal damage.
Oh, and, old boy, part of my family live in New York, as well, and have for many decades (it is also where I met my wife). So don’t bother.
You have played Trivial Pursuit? Oh, you are an expert then, sir. Ever played at silly mid on? Or is British Bulldog more your recreational cup of tea? Wet Bob or Dry Bob?
“the UK extends all the way to your nearest Manhattan coffee shop and their free wifi + whatever”
The Bowery.
James,
Awesome!
Well done!
Oliver Bug! Welcome back. Loved you in Gladiator, btw.
My offer, in case you missed it, stands. I will open a vimeo account. I will give you the password. You can upload the pictures of your medals with the name Oliver Reeder engraved on them to that account, and post a link to it here. I will then donate $1000.00 to the charity of your choice.
Do it not, and be accepted for the fake that you are.
Oliver, its considered poor from, ol’ chap, to Like your own post. Do refrain.
*form
“Oh, I am forgetting, he is desperate to sell a book.”
Here, the Lawn Boy Elvis Bug outs himself with his usual disparaging of Tur;ey’s motives. He seems unreasonably irritated with the fact that Turley wrote a book.
I’m sorry Proximo, are you arguing that freedom from slavery is some sort of right?
The solution to the latter is, of course, to execute more well educated, mentally stable Caucasians. Let’s not be “disproportionate”, by any means.
You damned Yankees are well known for disproportionately executing criminals—-Oliver Reed
I have no problem with capital punishment, as long as you can guarantee -= absolutely 100% – that the people you execute are actually guilty. That you can guarantee that there are never any, any, miscarriages of justice.
That was one of the primary reasons why capital punishment was abandoned in the UK. Not because we were squeamish – some are, but many are not – but because even the very small number of cases where convictions were proved to be wrongful were too many to risk taking an innocent life.
I am not arguing for the USA to discontinue capital punishment, as it is none of my business what you do. My point is that similarly do not lecture us on how we preserve, in a democracy, a well ordered and fair society, by preaching about freedom of speech framed in YOUR constitution.
@Oliver Reeder: Are you allowing the things you feed your mind to enslave it?
I believe he’s starving it to death old chap🤮
And there is this:
The Western World Has Succumbed to Tyranny – Paul Craig Roberts
https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2024/08/20/the-western-world-has-succumbed-to-tyranny/
“The notion that the West is free is a joke. When there is no free expression
there is only tyranny. And that is what the Western world is. A tyranny.”
One may completely disagree with the opinions expressed by Medhurst, but that would be completely off the point (ntm fully serving the interests of those who would deny us our fundamental rights). The point is that Medhurst has a right to express his opinions publicly. In addition, his treatment after his arrest is reminiscent of how other totalitarian regimes have treated their own political detainees.
Ah, they had a good run. How long could they last, anyway? They were already a shriveled husk of what once was. Let them pull the plug if they want. It is elder abuse to try to keep them going. Write ’em off. RIP.
What do the British plan to do with Islamic extremism?
Embrace it
We actively combat it. See Operation Shader, about to enter its eleventh year. See the stripping of individuals such as Miss Begum of their UK citizenship. See the prosecutions, of which Prof Turley doubtless disapproves, for the dissemination of Islamist extremist content online. Exactly the same counter-extremist laws which Turley decries above, but he does not mention those cases; one can only assume that he realises that most of his loyal acolytes here would think combatting Islamist extremism to be rather reasonable…
“We actively combat it. See Operation Shader,”
@Oliver Reeder: Yet in some cities, Sharia law has replaced British law. So much for active combat.
Another myth spread by the media. Some ethnic communities allegedly use Sharia to resolve non-criminal disputes, just as you and your neighbour might actually not resort to formal litigation to settle a dispute. But there is no question of Sharia having any, ANY, standing in British law. Most definitely not in criminal matters. So Sharia has not replaced British law. It is no different than a US pastor trying to reconcile marriage difficulties rather than telling the couple to head straight to the divorce lawyers, or a New York rabbi trying to resolve disputes amicably within his congregation. Those individuals who have tried arguing Sharia points in British courts have not fared well in terms of sympathy from the judge.
Now go away and Google Op Shader, there’s a good chap. The RAF is or was the second most active player in the coalition after the USAF and USMC.
@Oliver Reeder. Some British laws are maintained, but the Sharia court holds significant influence, including much of what is admissible in the British Court. Is my nephew’s fear for his safety at risk in these areas? He tries to avoid them, but business sometimes forces him there. Should we not heed the videos and reports highlighting Britain’s struggle to control these areas?
You have a lot in common with the nuts on this blog that denied the existence of CRT and unequal justice. You are so much alike.
“It is no different than a US pastor trying to reconcile marriage difficulties rather than telling the couple to head straight to the divorce lawyers, or a New York rabbi trying to resolve disputes amicably within his congregation. ”
Do you truly understand the situation in Britain? It doesn’t look that way.
I note that you cannot respond to more profound thoughts and questions presented to you by others. That is another feature of the nuts on this blog. Your response to the issues I presented two days ago is eagerly awaited, as your input is crucial to this discussion. One cannot act politely to another who shoots and runs.
” The RAF is or was the second most active player in the coalition after the USAF and USMC.”
I often note that those who constantly brag about their military service or bravery are frequently the ones with an impairment in either the higher or lower brain. You are beginning to sound like one of those.
Absolute bollocks to suggest that British courts take any account of Sharia law; much less entertain it. If your nephew believes that, he is sadly deluded. Now, I quite understand that there may be some neighbourhoods where he would be reluctant to venture; I know from my American friends that there are plenty of neighbourhood in some of your more… vibrant… cities where sensible people do not venture. That has everything to do with predatory criminality, nothing to do with Sharia law or other such nonsense. I am not bragging about military service, merely pointing out to silly and ignorant folk that the UK is very active in combatting extreme Islamism. It is not as if I am claiming to be one of those RAF aircrew. I have friends who have flown on ops in Shader, but not me. I am proud of what they have done, and continue to do, that is all.
“Absolute bollocks to suggest that British courts take any account of Sharia law;”
@Oliver: Your reply isn’t an accurate representation of what I said, but I’ll accept it. Your remark shows you do not recognize that real life can subtly change how the law functions. You also demonstrate little understanding of UK and US law. Even in the US, the courts’ presence can be diminished by circumstances.
Regarding your present and prior claims about British law, look at Bates v. the postal system in the UK. It demonstrated a lack of access to the courts by citizens who were wronged and how the courts could convict innocent people (almost 100 convictions were already overturned with about 700 reviews left to go). It also shows how thousands of people were forced to pay money so they wouldn’t be convicted of a theft they didn’t commit. To date, it shows a slow-moving judicial system, a bureaucracy that protected itself at the expense of human lives and how those with guilt are not punished.
Next weeks episode Democrats jail people for aligning with Trump…Oh wait that has happened for 7 years!
so you jail people for the idea of fascism? Wait that is FASCISM!
Remember Fascist Germans and Italians and others of 1930’s Europe jailed people for being Communists.
IT is 100% about POWER…has ZERO to do with keeping you safe!
globalists and Democrats are Fascists!
It isn’t enough to vote them out…we need to JAIL THEM for the OBVIOUS CRIMES in LARGE Numbers….or the WEST is LOST!
It is obvious they are BACKED by people WHO HATE THE WEST, China, Soros, etc