(Ed. Note.). I had just seen Tommy Robinson on an interview in Canada with Jordan Peterson. I think part of the take away was that during the interview, it looked like Robinson was talking himself in to releasing the documentary that caused his arrest. Knowing full well that it could lead to him being jailed for up to 2 years. (the UK courts are far from sympathetic to English nationalists and lump them in with far right and extremists types.. what would they have done with Churchill?)
The UK press is in such lockstep with the government that it was very hard just to try to find unibased, let alone pro-Robinson, articles. It is a sad state of affairs in the UK and they are definitely on the slippery slope to becoming a caliphate (no joke).
A link to Robinson's film and his interview with Peterson are at the bottom. Judge for yourself.
Terrorism Act 2000
2000 CHAPTER 11
An Act to make provision about terrorism; and to make temporary provision for Northern Ireland about the prosecution and punishment of certain offences, the preservation of peace and the maintenance of order.
[20th July 2000]
Be it enacted by the Queen’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:— (Ed Note. see bottom for link)
The recent events surrounding the arrest of Tommy Robinson have once again ignited a controversial debate about freedom of speech, just and equal application of the law, and the role of government and law enforcement in preserving these principles. From a conservative standpoint, this incident is emblematic of what many see as a dangerous trend toward two-tiered policing and censorship that threatens to undermine the foundational liberties that our society holds dear.
Tommy Robinson, well-known for his outspoken stance on issues such as immigration, Islamic extremism, and what he views as the erosion of British values and freedoms, was detained by police using powers under the Terrorism Act 2000. This move, announced via Robinson's official account on X (formerly known as Twitter), was met with immediate outrage and disbelief among his supporters. The Metropolitan Police, however, stated that they had no involvement, further muddying the waters and raising questions about the true nature and justification of his detention.
This arrest came in the wake of Robinson’s "Uniting The Kingdom" rally in London, an event touted as the largest patriotic rally the UK had ever seen. Thousands of supporters gathered in Trafalgar Square, waving British flags and voicing their frustrations with what they perceive as a government increasingly hostile to their values. At the heart of the controversy was Robinson’s screening of his documentary "Silenced," which revisited the case of Syrian refugee Jamal Hijazi. This case had previously led to a libel judgment against Robinson, costing him £100,000 in damages plus court costs for allegedly making false claims about Hijazi.
Robinson’s challenge to the authorities to “take him to court” came after screening the film, which had been banned from making the claims contained within it by a court injunction. Conservatives argue that Robinson’s actions, while potentially provocative, were an attempt to highlight what he and his supporters see as a selective application of censorship and freedom of speech.
The charges against Robinson, including those related to his alleged contempt of court for making and showing the documentary, are painted by his supporters as part of a broader government crackdown on dissenting voices. They argue that while Robinson faces severe legal repercussions for his speech, similar scrutiny and deterrence are not applied to other groups who, they claim, frequently engage in equally or more inflammatory rhetoric.
What particularly alarms many conservatives is the perception of a two-tier policing system. This is a system where law enforcement appears to act with heavy-handedness and strict adherence to the letter of the law when dealing with right-wing or nationalist figures like Robinson, but with a more lenient, accommodating approach towards leftist or Islamist extremists. The arrest and treatment of Robinson, they argue, exemplify this disparity and feed into a narrative that certain political beliefs are being systematically quashed while others are protected, if not outright encouraged.
Critics are particularly focused on how these actions by the police and the judiciary might reflect an overarching agenda to silence voices that challenge the prevailing multicultural and globalist ideologies upheld by the political elite. They see this as a direct threat to democratic principles, where all voices, regardless of their popularity or political correctness, should have the right to be heard and debated in the public sphere.
Moreover, the conservative critique extends to the broader implications of such arrests for public trust in law enforcement and the judicial system. Trust erodes when the public perceives that the police and courts do not apply the law fairly and equally. This perception can lead to civil disobedience and unrest, further fracturing society and destabilizing the very fabric of law and order.
In summary, the arrest of Tommy Robinson and the charges brought against him are viewed by conservatives not just as an isolated incident of alleged contempt of court but as part of a larger, worrying trend towards censorship and unequal justice. They argue that the principles of free speech and equal treatment under the law must be preserved and defended to maintain the integrity of British democracy and the rights of its citizens. Whether one agrees with Robinson's views or not, the essential issue at stake is the right to express those views without fear of undue government repression and legal persecution.
Links:
UK Terrorism Act 2000 : https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/11/introduction
"Silenced" Robinson's banned film (cause of the arrest). https://rumble.com/embed/v2ntg1u/
Comments