In the classic movie comedy, A Fish Called Wanda, John Cleese lamented, “do you have any idea what it’s like being English? Being so correct all the time, being so stifled by this dread of, of doing the wrong thing.” Now 86, Cleese has a more pressing concern about being English: whether his exercise of free speech will make him a criminal in his own country.
In a recent interview, Cleese observed that the government’s new speech standards would classify many citizens, including himself, as presumptive criminals for criticizing certain policies. He observed that”As I am an Islamosceptic, I’m now worried that the Labour government may categorise me as a terrorist…”
The government of Prime Minister Keir Starmer has continued its headlong plunge into the criminalization of speech. The guidelines include a section on cultural nationalism, stating that such views are now the subject of government crackdowns. To even argue that Western culture is under threat from mass migration or a lack of integration by certain groups is being treated as a dangerous ideology.
Cleese responded by saying, “I’m clearly a terrorist, so I’m afraid they are going to have to arrest me.”
The tragedy is that this is no wicked Monty Python joke. Cleese has every reason to be concerned.
As I discuss in Rage and the Republic, the United Kingdom has eviscerated free speech in the name of social cohesion and order.
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 of 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. Two years ago, the home secretary, Yvette Cooper, vowed to crack down on people “pushing harmful and hateful beliefs.” That includes what she calls extreme misogyny.
Now the UK’s most famous writers and comedians believe that they can be arrested under the country’s draconian speech laws from JK Rowling to John Cleese.
That leaves free speech much like Cleese’s famous parrot. The British government and its supporters can claim evidence of life or just “resting,” but it is in fact “bleedin’ demised…passed on! … no more! … ceased to be! … expired and gone to meet ‘is maker!”
Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the author of “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution,” a New York Times Bestseller.
What will make the Iran war so much better than the Iraq war?
Getting Russia and China involved?
The more the merrier?
Apparently you’re incapable of following the thread. Its about Cleese. Not russia, china etc. You libs have scrambled brains.
I am not aware of ANYONE who is talking about the US invading Iran.
In what world do you see either Russia or China getting seriously involved ?
Russia has more than it can handle with the Ukraine war. We MAY be near a tipping point at which Russia runs out of resources to continue the fight before Ukraine does. US Forces camped arround Iran for a long period may ALONE chift the calculus of the Ukraine war enough to force Russia to come to the table of risk losing all their gains todate.
Regardless, they can not handle another war right now. And they are NOT going to do anything consequential to help Iran.
What resources is Russia going to give Iran that it does not need itself more desparately ?
China has different problems,. regardless those problems keep it focused internally.
There was a coup attempt in China in the last month and as a result Xi has purged the entire top military – about 4000 ranking officers.
The world should breath a sigh of relief – while this does not inherently mean China will not do something stupid like try to invade Taiwan – or consequentially involve themselves with Iran – it dramatically reduces their capability to do so effectively.
We ARE seeing both China and Russia sending their “state of the art” air defense systems to Iran.
These systems performed poorly for Iran in the 12 day war and even worse for Venezuela.
It is actually very dangerous for either China or Russia to send their best systems to Iran – because if the US wipes them out easily – that makes chinese and Russian arms sales far less popular. No one wants to buy systems that do not work.
Russia has no surplus systems – top end or not right now. And China is not providing its best systems, and can not transport significant systems to Iran right now.
In FACT what is actually happening RIGHT NOW is the reverse.
Iran is preparing for War – and it is NOT sending munitions to Russia for use in the Ukraine war that it might need
Iran WAS supplying 40% of Russian Munitions. Now they are keeping that for their own use.
Despite all the sabre rattling I am not convinced That the US is going to do anything beyond a protracted military embargo, and MAYBE further damage Iran’s nuclear and missle progams.
Iran has HUGE problems right now, I likely can not pay the IRGC – how long do you think their loyalty lasts without pay ?
Some of you have a weird idea of what freedom is.
Good to know. in your case, freedom is weird. I get that right?
The world seemed more stable before 2016. Those were the days…
Looks like anon is on a roll this morning. Wanna bet its gonna leave stupid comments.
You are free to make a smart comment. I am still waiting for it.
no it was not. In 2016 half of America woke up and said no to the elites. Half of America did it again in 2024.
Wow. John Cleese looked so much younger when he was younger.
I ignore the Nonny Mice that infect this site.
So says the nonexistent davey the mousey man.
As you and everyone else should.
So says the NY pig farmer, America’s latest philosopher. Funny how a pig farmer thinks he’s ….
Are you trying to CENSOR someone here? Folks, to think republicans here rage about censorship, this one and his bootlicker, hull-booby, are trying to have all anons removed from Turley’s blog. Yes, from someone else’s blog. Folks, its been said a lot here, you can’t fix stupid and here we are again…
Where did I say you could not speak? Where did I say to censor you? Where did I say, or HullBobby say to removed you? No where. I just said to ignore all you annony morons just like David B. Benson said. You clearly lack reading comprehension skills. Once again, you jump to illogical conclusions without facts or evidence.
Anon is right, here you are again calling anons insults. I’ve seen the attacks with you and hullbobby going after even non-anons. So now you as usual resort to denials. Your kind is a plague on this blog. back off and leave people alone.
What is the matter? Now you have to try to comment as someone else other than annony to make it look like you have support? We have all seen you play this game before. We can see through it.
“I just said to ignore all you annony morons.” There you go again, attacking people for no reason. What is your problem.
Just doing a service for all the others.
You see people, he’s trying to censor people because…. even resorts to threats and insults.
As if.
Apparently you’re incapable of following the thread. Its about Cleese.
Are you censoring?
Turning a blind eye. So enlightened.
You would have to say something worth reading.
Apparently you’re incapable of following the thread. Its about Cleese.
To refocus Comments to: John Cleese Declares “I’m Afraid They are Going to Have to Arrest Me.”
Many of us have and still view every DVR produced for Monty Python’s Flying Circus and deeply appreciate the humor, sarcasm, and wit.
The more appropriate sketch for this article would have been the “Secret Service Dentistry” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6tAW7bbnAU which may reflect his current rhetoric better.
As an American citizen living abroad during adolescence and subsequently on occasions, one of my favorite places was Hyde Park Speakers’ Corner. Grabbing fish and chips wrapped in newspaper and listening to speakers (and those who would present contrary arguments thereto) was both entertaining AND intellectual – and general rules of civil discourse were followed – including an immediate cessation of any ad hominem fallacy attack (argument against the person) when one arguer presents his point and the second arguer ignores the point, instead attacking the character of his opponent.
That corner was a historical sacred sanctuary of freedom of speech – even if not actually protected by law in the UK/London.
The loss of freedom of speech in the world strikes sorrow.
HOWEVER, using John Cleese as an example is inappropriate. Though I have admired him for a lifetime, his shrinkage to ad hominem attack over the last few years has reduced his image to Lord Haha as he attacks those he claims have insufficient mental capability or sickness to contradict his personal opinions or understand the occurrences that led to and fed WWII.
Yes, the world is at loss of freedom of speech, but as individuals, perhaps we could restore some of that faith through civil discourse absent of ad hominem attack – and remember the value thereof:
The “Meaning of Life” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buqtdpuZxvk
Actual Americans, Look Out!!!
Suzy Creamcheese
…will punish corporations and other institutions who have “taken a knee to Trump.” “It’s not going to end well for them. If these corporations think that the Democrats, when they come back in power, are going to play by the old rules…they’ve got another thing coming.
– Affirmative Action Project Extraordinaire Susan Rice
The thing that you want the least (nuclear war) will be started by the guy who you support the most.
“The thing that you want the least (nuclear war) will be started by the guy who you support the most.”
The “you” being Americans, both willing and unwilling in their support, collectively.
Netanyahu is “the guy.”
It is possible that when Iran detects an attack they will unleash a massive barrage of missiles against Israel. They saw what happened to Gaza. Better to attack early before the capability is lost. When enough missiles get through the iron yarmulke to cause massive damage and casualties is when the risk will be greatest.
We should have long ago traded Israel’s nuclear weapons and program for a regional moratorium on same with robust inspection protocols.
Not ours to trade. you say? If our leaders had the guts it would be.
This was about censorship in the UK as explained by Cleese. You posted this garbage in the wrong place.
Biden got us out of a war.
Trump is getting us into wars.
You people are so preposterous with your inconsistencies.
Would that be Afghanistan ? Biden deserves Kudos for completing Trump’s plan.
And jeers for doing it badly.
Regardless but for Biden – the Ukraine war never would have happened – There would have been no stupid talk of Ukraine joining NATO.
Putin was xrystal clear that was never happening. He invaded Crimea the last time Democrats talked of that.
And he invaded Georgia when NATO expansion was discussed before that.
The War in Gaza was under Biden’s watch – and likely would not have occured with another president.
The War in syrai was under Biden’s watch – and syria remains a mess.
The Mideast was a mess under Biden’s watch – the Suez nearly shut, nd terrorists lobbing missles at US warship and other nations tankers.
All over the place Biden was bringing about death and destruction.
What Wars is Trump getting us into ?
Panama Caved – Trump got what he wanted,
He al;so got what he wanted with Greenland – not a shot fired.
Maduro is in jail and Rodreguez is cozying up to the US
No war, and very few shots fired.
Cuba is collapsing on its own.
Trump did not make the mess in Iran – even Obama admits blowing it with the green revolution.
It is hard to tell what will happen in Iran.
But is there anyone that does not want the Ayatolha gone ?
Are we going to have to use FORCE ? I do not know.
Will it be swift or drawn out ? I do not know.
But Thus far Trump has NOT actually gotten the US into an actual war.
We will have to see with Iran.
Trump threatens – and no one knows if he will go through with it.
Meanwhile, Iran is blockaded, no oil out, no money in.
And most of its munitions to Russia are cut off.
RFussia appears to be falterin in Ukraine – there are many causes for that,
But idolating Russia from Iran, Cuba, China, and Venezuealla is part of that.
With the S Court tariff ruling, I wonder if Trump thinks it’s time to redecorate the Supreme Court building. While it is fixed up the Court can convene in the old FBI building or, maybe, Alcatraz; I have visited the rock and it seems like a nice place for many judges, particularly those appointed by Autopen.
The reputation of the federal courts has fallen far under Roberts.
It’s long past time to pull a full Lincoln, impose martial law, suspend habeas corpus, rescind communism, and put America squarely back on the Constitution and Bill of Rights, 1789.
The SCOTUS got it right— only Congress can enact tariffs because they are taxes. Only Congress can pass and enact tariffs. The SCOTUS put the brakes on Trump’s ego. This ruling is very significant and does not portend well for Trump’s authoritarian agenda. Trump still doesn’t understand or doesn’t want to understand that he can’t do whatever he wants. He actually said he could do whatever he wants in that sad press conference today. He said “I have the right to do tariffs.”
His real reason for passionately demanding tariffs is that massive ego— which is the only reason he wanted to be POTUS. He wanted a tool to use to get the leaders of other countries to take a knee and kiss his butt—along with all of the US-based companies paying homage and giving gifts to seek exemptions. Trump wants to be a king and command adulation and tariffs are one way to get the adulation his craven soul requires—along with some other financial benefits. He really doesn’t care that tariffs are costing American families between $1500 and $2,000 per year and are damaging small businesses.
While I beleive the decision is correct, it is really just a speed bump.
“This ruling is very significant and does not portend well for Trump’s authoritarian agenda.”
No it is not all that significant.
It is one of Two things Trump was likely to lose – the other is birth right citizenship.
He has done incredibly well otherwise.
SCOTUS telegraphed this decision – and it appears evident that the administration is prepared.
Trump has enacted Tarriffs under a different authority – one that is rock solid.
And the administration is in the process of enacting higher tarrifs under different authorities that require more narrow findings of misconduct.
Speaker Johnson has promised to codify the Trump tarriffs shortly.
As Kavanaugh points out SCOTUS ignored the question of “refunds” – which has lots of left wing nuts jumping for joy.
While some lower courts might order refunds – it is HIGHLY unlikely that SCOTUS is going to order hundreds of billions in refunds – and who is going to get them ? Those whole filed this lawsuit are unlikely to get a dime. They would have to establish they Ate the cost of the tarriff or they would be gettign a windfall.
SCOTUS is unlikely to bless that – and Schumer can say whatever he wants – Congress is not going to yank hundreds of billions in revenue.
It is highly likely that the tarrifs will be back in place with congresses blessing, and no refunds issued in very short order.
If that is not the case – All republican candidates for the next 11months are going to blame Everything that goes wrong on democrats.
“Trump still doesn’t understand or doesn’t want to understand that he can’t do whatever he wants.”
More false narative from the left. He can do anything the constitution and the law allow.
” He actually said he could do whatever he wants in that sad press conference today. He said “I have the right to do tariffs.””
Your claim and his words are NOT the same.
Trumps statement is incorrect – Government has powers – not rights. But Trump is correct that he has fairly broad tariff authority.
I would note Trump’s IEPA argument was not off the rails – the same wording in a predecessor stature was used by prior president to levy similar tariffs and SCOTUS allowed that then.
That said I think SCOTUS was correct now and not then.
At the same time – this is a news cycle or two and will be gone.
SCOTUS will not force refunds, Trump already has other authorities to impose these tariffs – which SCOTUS noted.
They are either shorter duration, smaller in scale or require individualized findings.
And finally – it is highly likely that Congress will act relatively quickly to remedy this.
“His real reason for passionately demanding tariffs is that massive ego— which is the only reason he wanted to be POTUS. He wanted a tool to use to get the leaders of other countries to take a knee and kiss his butt—along with all of the US-based companies paying homage and giving gifts to seek exemptions. Trump wants to be a king and command adulation and tariffs are one way to get the adulation his craven soul requires—along with some other financial benefits.”
Mind read much ?
The Tarriffs are a negotiating tool.
Further Trump has Absolutely proven – as we knew in the 19th century that they are an effective tool for raising revenue.
Myriads predicted doom and gloom – and yet the economy did quite well DESPITE the tariffs.
Does Trump love the power of being president – absolutely – every president does.
Everyone in the world kisses the but of the US president – even that of president demonto Biden.
As to Graft – that is a democrat specialty – look arround at the graft and corruption in Minesota, Or Maine or Illinois, or Maryland, or CA or ….
“He really doesn’t care that tariffs are costing American families between $1500 and $2,000 per year and are damaging small businesses.”
I run multiple small business that receive some products from china – I have seen NO EFFECT.
As to this idiotic claim of costing Amrican Families – sorry they data does not bear that out.
During Biden’s 4 years real take home pay declined by $1400/person. During 2025 real take home pay ROSE by 1500/person.
Regardless the american people unlike you are not morons. They understand that Tarrifs MIGHT cost them a bit at the store,
but that they bring investment and jobs back to the US and that they compensate for unfair trade practices of other countries.
Wall street is cheering – wealthy corporate interests are cheering – trump haters are cheering,
But the american people are NOT.
You rant about Trump being a dictator – and we can debate the constitutionality or lawfulness of these tariffs – though SCOTUS hs spoken on
that. But these Tariffs when a part of the agenda that voters voted for.
Trump wanted these tariffs AND voters voted for them. A bit more is needed in a constitutional republic – we are NOT a democracy.
But this was NOT some dictator acting unilaterally.
Trump HAD he consent of the governed.
In fact he has it is everything he has done.
He is doing what voters voted for.
Not you, but you are on the fringe.
6 or 3 got it right, or 6 or 3 got it wrong.
If it isn’t 9 to 0, it’s bad law or bad justice that should be remanded.
If you’re half right, you’re half wrong.
If you’re half wrong, you’re all wrong.
I beleive the Tarrif ruling is correct,
But it is just a speed bump to Trump Tarrifs,
there are half a dozen clearer authorities available to Trump they are just not as broad.
For those who are unaware,John Say is a paid MAGA pundit who constantly defends Trump and usually attacks anyone who criticizes Trump.
“For those who are unaware,John Say is a paid MAGA pundit who constantly defends Trump and usually attacks anyone who criticizes Trump.”
ROFL
Please, please, someone pay me for writing this!!!!!
I would happily take money for writing my views.
Regardless, I am libertarian, not MAGA, and I did not vote for Trump.
I do criticise those of you on the left – whether you are attacking Trump or not,
Because you are either fools, liars or both.
I have NOT been a proponent of Tariffs – and I am NOT now.
But I am also NOT stupid.
They are NOT inflationary – that claim is lunatic.
They CAN BE protectionist – and that is generally a bad idea.
It results in your own businesses being less competitive and more fragile.
They also can be retaliatory – as Trumps’ partly are.
They also can – as SCOTUS notes raise revenue.
I am DEEPLY opposed to protectionist tariffs,
On the fence about retaliatory tariffs,
If Government must raise Revenue,
Tariffs are close to the least bad way to do so.
Sales taxes are the absolute least bad way,
wealth and property taxes the worst way.
So NO I do not suport Trump in everything. At the same time FEW things are binary – except that the left is ALWAYS wrong.
I have plenty of criticisms of Trump. Though we rarely touch the issues where I have issues on this blog.
And even where I disagree with Trump – few issues are actually binary, and even where Trump is wrong – the left is more wrong and dangerous.
ATS – look arround – MAGA posters here are attacking SCOTUS – I do think it was a huge mistake on the part of SCOTUS to fail to adress whether funds collected must be refunded.
But other than that I think they got this right – though there is merit in the dissents – this decision, though correct is a reversal of prior decisions.
So somehow in your head I am a paid MAGA shill for saying – SCOTUS is right, Trump is wrong, but in the end it will not matter, because Trump can accomplish what he wants other ways ?
I expect my posts on this to be attacked by the MAGA posters here – though I doubt they are going to call me a paid shill for AOC.
I also expect they will make rational arguments not ad hominem.
There WERE good arguments on both sides of this issue – This decision IS a reversal of prior precident.
At the same time no prior president enactd Tariffs on Trump’s scale.
Reggardless, on the MERITS SCOTUS is correct,
I just wish they would universally decide that Congress can not delegate its authority to the president.
Instead SCOTUS looks hypocritical by saying – sometimes they can sometimes they can’t.
Regardless, this decision was expected and will not be more than a speed bump.
For those who are unaware, this annony moron is Gigi/Natasha who has made all kinds of claims so absurd, lies, gaslights, she had to change her moniker from Natasha to Gigi and now to Anonymous. She is constantly wrong about nearly everything.
Hey Gigi, recall how Professor Turley made the Amazon best seller list and you ranted and raved how he was not on the NYT best seller list? I told you to wait a week or so. Here you go!!
I am delighted to announce that my new book, “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution,” is now #2 on the New York Times Bestsellers list for nonfiction.
https://jonathanturley.org/2026/02/12/rage-and-the-republic-debuts-as-2-on-new-york-times-bestseller-list/
John, I haven’t read the opinions but the three smartest justices dissented from the majority.
The three leftists, including the idiot, are discounted. Roberts is too clever by half, confusing even himself in attempts to twist the law to support a political outcome, so he doesn’t weigh much. The other two are mysteries and may be right. But I suspect the three smart ones are right.
The CORE issue is can Congress delegate its constitutional powers to the president.
I am a near ABSOLUTE non-delegationist.
By NEAR I mean that Congress absolutely CAN delegate powers to the executive for use IN AN EMERGENCY.
But emergencies can not be forever. We have presidential emergency declarations going back to the 70’s that are still active.
This SCOTUS decision tries to split the baby – and say – Congress can delegate SOME regulatory power, but not consequential taxing power
and not broadly.
When I say – and the administration is already moving to use OTHER authorities. Thse are Similar to IEAPA but either not as borad or not as long. Those ar mor constitutionally appropriate.
With respect to Alito Thomas and Kavanaugh – first I think Gorsuch is probably the smartest justice – but I still MORE OFTEN agree with Thomas – but not always.
I have not read the dissents, but I GUESS they are based on Stare Decisis – and in that thy are correct – this decision IS a small reversal of prior decisions.
Regardless, I do NOT think this decision is a HUGE deal.
It is a rebuke to limitless executive powers. In MOST recent cases I beleive the president HAS broad power that even congress can not limit over the SPECIFIC issues. But on regulations and taxes – the power is with Congress and I do not beleive it can be delegated.
Put differently I strongly support bright line separation of powers.
I want the Courts out of legislating from the bench and I want them out substituting their decisions for the executive.
We have fights here about supposed “judicial warrants” – which is nonsense – nearly all federal warrants – including ICE are signed by an Article II judge.
I would personally completely eliminate article II judges. The judicial function belongs in the judiciary.
Immigration judges, IRS judges, social security judges and federal magistrates belong in the Judiciary.
But I am not going to get that.
But the rebuke to executive power – while seen by the left as about Trump is for all presidents.
I am OK with that.
And there is no way Government is going to allow 300B/yr of revenue to slip through their fingers.
This will get resolved.
it is a speed bump.
Do you really think any democrat running in 2026 wants to vote AGAINST Trump’s tariffs ?
John,
Well reasoned and I might change my mind.
I am already concerned about judicial, executive and legislative duties being ceded to the administrative state. This may just be a branch of that issue. Professor Hamburger had written brilliantly on it in his “Is Administrative Law Unlawful?”
Regards
Turley and the ACLU have different philosophies about what freedom of expression is.
That would be Turley and the CURRENT ACLU
I am a past member of the ACLU – when they took free speech seriously.
They have lost their way.
Turley hasn’t
“Turley and the ACLU have different philosophies about what freedom of expression is.”
That’s fair.
Sadly, the current ACLU leadership chose a partisan path. Much different from the ACLU culture that existed under Nadine Strossen’s leadership, when Turley’s views DID align with the ACLU.
The ACLU changed. Turley did not.
NEWS FLASH: SUPREME COURT RULES AGAINST TRUMP’S TARIFFS.
Trump is silly. Doesn’t he know that the Deep State is in charge of America and that he’s just a figurehead to give the public the false impression that he’s really in charge as President? Of course, Trump was responsible for picking Gorsuch and Amy Barrett, but that wouldn’t have made any difference because instead of 6-3 against him, it would have been 5-4, still a loss for Trump.
Trump and the rest of America need to know that we live in “The Outer Limits”, not in the world they think they live in, and the Deep State controls “all that you see and hear”:
Absolutely idiotic and corrupt.
The Supreme Court can find a difference between a regulation and a tax regarding tariffs,
but it can’t find that there is absolutely NO legal basis in the Constitution for Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, or Obamacare.
6 — 3
THE SUPREME COURT PROVED ITS OWN CORRUPT NATURE.
THE SUPREME COURT PROVED THAT IT IS PARTIAL AND ISSUES POLITICAL DECISIONS BY THE VERY ACT OF SPLITTING THE VOTE.
THERE IS ONLY ONE “MANIFEST TENOR” OF EVERY LAW.
Partial… political… thankfully were are a country of laws. For now.
The parrot is now a metaphor for freedom in the UK, and the state of western civilization generally across western Europe.
Did this ball get rolling when those Danish cartoonists vied to caricature the Prophet? It feels like the Brits have already surrendered culturally. Or is this just an unhappy coincidence that British speech standards have come to resemble Islamist oppression?
Hi Professor,
I know how pertinent the topic of freedom of speech in….(checks notes) England (???) is to America right now, but I thought you might like to hear about what Trump-appointed Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch just wrote in his concurring opinion regarding striking down Trump’s tariffs, “…Our system of separated power and checks-and-balance threatens to give way to the continual and permanent accretion of power in the hands of one man. That is no recipe for a republic.”
Can’t wait to read your next blog post on how Gorsuch is now a RAGE AGENT!
Have a good weekend –
May 06, 2009 ‘The Times’ London, headline: “Shock jock Michael Savage and others on UK ban list had not applied for entry”.
“…. Two of the 16 people named by Jacqui Smith as excluded from Britain are in prison in Russia….” Michael Weiner aka Michael Savage (author and radio host) was banned for statements about the Koran, validity of autism, homosexuals’ other subjects and his general mannerisms.
The list:
Abdullah Qadri al-Ahdal, Yunis al-Astal, Samir al-Quntar, Stephen Donald Black, Wadgy Abd el-Hamied Mohamed Ghoneim, Erich Gliebe, Mike Guzovsky, Safwat Hijazi, Nasr Javed, Abdul Ali Musa (previously Clarence Reams), Fred Waldron Phelps Sr, Shirley Phelps-Roper, Artur Ryno, Amir Siddique, Pavel Skachevsky and Michael Alan Weiner (aka Michael Savage)
All this nonsense in Merry Ole England started way before today, another Heathen to freedom(s) after Smith was none other than Theresa May while Home Secretary and then PM.
The Savage Weiner was a Berkeley PhD. and dilettante trying different ways to make a living. When political talk radio took off, he noted there was far more money to be made as a right-winger than as a leftist.
Do I think Weiner is an actual conservative? No.
Really. We are talking about Monty Python, and comedy, and celebrated, at that. This has all gone way beyond the pale. I don’t think Britain is salvageable. We still are. Stop thinking this is something you can afford to stand on the sidelines for, American voters – this would literally be us if we hadn’t escaped by a thread in 2024, and could still very easily be us in the future. Get yourselves out of your comfort and vote against this leftist insanity.
The American Founding Fathers believed that nobody was qualified to govern us, only us voters were qualified governors to pick our members of Congress.
Is a politician running for short-term elected office, qualified or even care about your family’s longterm welfare? That’s why nanny-states never succeed.
How does any politician have the integrity to censor anyone? Regular citizens have way more integrity than most politicians.
Americans of both parties reject nanny-state government, from gun owners to women’s pro-choice. We self-govern within constitutional limits!
The American Founders severely restricted the vote, by state legislatures, to those with property, intellect, success, and good sense while denying the vote to the poor, who would simply vote themselves largesse from other people’s money.
And the Founders expected future officials to continue rational vote restrictions in perpetuity.
Leaders must lead.