Загрузка видео...

Не удалось загрузить видео

На главную

Keir Starmer faces backlash as his government weaponizes “hate speech” laws. From banning journalists to expanding rules that could criminalize slogans, flags, or anti-terror messaging, the crackdown is targeting one side while others face far less scrutiny. This raises serious concerns about selective enforcement and free speech in the UK.

TousiTVOfficial's profile picture

Tousi TV

129,284 subscribers

23,104 просмотров • 4 месяцев назад •via X (Twitter)

LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

Комментарии: 0

Нет доступных комментариев

Здесь появятся комментарии из оригинального поста

Похожие видео

Karnatka's Hate Speech Bill: Congress government in Karnataka has tabled a bill that claims to curb hate speech, but it attempts to risk free speech! The wording of the bill is vague and open to interpretation, which means even ordinary statements could be judged as ill will and lead to serious criminal action. India already has laws to deal with hate speech, and even the Supreme Court has said that the real problem is weak enforcement, not the absence of law. When the line between free speech and crime becomes unclear, people begin to self censor out of fear rather than responsibility!
2:16

Karnatka's Hate Speech Bill: Congress government in Karnataka has tabled a bill that claims to curb hate speech, but it attempts to risk free speech! The wording of the bill is vague and open to interpretation, which means even ordinary statements could be judged as ill will and lead to serious criminal action. India already has laws to deal with hate speech, and even the Supreme Court has said that the real problem is weak enforcement, not the absence of law. When the line between free speech and crime becomes unclear, people begin to self censor out of fear rather than responsibility!

Praffulgarg

11,269 просмотров • 9 месяцев назад

When hate speech cases were already being addressed under existing laws, the need for a separate Hate Speech Bill raises serious questions. The Indian Constitution and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita already provide safeguards while guaranteeing the Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression under Article 19(1)(a). The concern is not about protecting hatred, but about intent — is this law meant to protect a specific community, or to silence Hindutva voices? In a democracy, laws must restrain hate, not ideology or belief !
2:59

When hate speech cases were already being addressed under existing laws, the need for a separate Hate Speech Bill raises serious questions. The Indian Constitution and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita already provide safeguards while guaranteeing the Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression under Article 19(1)(a). The concern is not about protecting hatred, but about intent — is this law meant to protect a specific community, or to silence Hindutva voices? In a democracy, laws must restrain hate, not ideology or belief !

Meenakshi Sehrawat

11,441 просмотров • 8 месяцев назад

The idea that Keir Starmer and The Labour Party are anything other than pro-free speech is total manufactured nonsense from extremists on both sides of the political spectrum. Our PM was clear to Trump and Vance in the Oval Office that the UK has a long history of free speech and that this government will defend freedom of expression vigorously.
2:14

The idea that Keir Starmer and The Labour Party are anything other than pro-free speech is total manufactured nonsense from extremists on both sides of the political spectrum. Our PM was clear to Trump and Vance in the Oval Office that the UK has a long history of free speech and that this government will defend freedom of expression vigorously.

Kevin Craig

15,536 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

ALERT:🚨 UK CRACKDOWN: 15 YEARS IN PRISON FOR VIEWING "FAR-RIGHT" CONTENT? 🚨 The UK government is reportedly considering legislation that could imprison individuals for up to 15 years simply for viewing "far-right" propaganda online. This move has sparked intense debate over free speech and the definition of "far-right" content. Critics argue that such laws could be vague and overreaching, potentially criminalizing individuals for innocuous activities or legitimate research. The concern is that this could lead to a slippery slope, where government overreach infringes on personal freedoms and stifles dissent. Is this a necessary step to combat extremism, or a dangerous erosion of civil liberties? The balance between security and freedom hangs in the balance.
1:16

ALERT:🚨 UK CRACKDOWN: 15 YEARS IN PRISON FOR VIEWING "FAR-RIGHT" CONTENT? 🚨 The UK government is reportedly considering legislation that could imprison individuals for up to 15 years simply for viewing "far-right" propaganda online. This move has sparked intense debate over free speech and the definition of "far-right" content. Critics argue that such laws could be vague and overreaching, potentially criminalizing individuals for innocuous activities or legitimate research. The concern is that this could lead to a slippery slope, where government overreach infringes on personal freedoms and stifles dissent. Is this a necessary step to combat extremism, or a dangerous erosion of civil liberties? The balance between security and freedom hangs in the balance.

Jim Ferguson

400,552 просмотров • 1 год назад

Labour MP Tahir Ali (Birmingham Hall Green and Moseley) asked Prime Minister Keir Starmer in Parliament: “Will the Prime Minister commit to introducing measures to prohibit the desecration of all religious texts and the prophets of the Abrahamic religions?” Starmer did not reject the idea. He replied: “Desecration is awful… we are committed to tackling all forms of hatred and division, including Islamophobia in all its forms.” Britain abolished its blasphemy laws in 2008 to protect free speech. Now, less than two years into a Labour government, MPs are already trying to bring them back. This is how freedom of speech dies — one “hate speech” law at a time.
0:58

Labour MP Tahir Ali (Birmingham Hall Green and Moseley) asked Prime Minister Keir Starmer in Parliament: “Will the Prime Minister commit to introducing measures to prohibit the desecration of all religious texts and the prophets of the Abrahamic religions?” Starmer did not reject the idea. He replied: “Desecration is awful… we are committed to tackling all forms of hatred and division, including Islamophobia in all its forms.” Britain abolished its blasphemy laws in 2008 to protect free speech. Now, less than two years into a Labour government, MPs are already trying to bring them back. This is how freedom of speech dies — one “hate speech” law at a time.

Yossi BenYakar

121,923 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

The lying rat that is Keir Starmer has just gave a speech following hundreds of his own party demanding he resign During it, he openly admitted he's banning anyone from entering the UK for our Unite The Kingdom and the West rally. This is including American citizens, he lied to your faces JD Vance Donald J. Trump This pathetic little man does not speak for the UK. Our borders remain wide open to invaders, yet people fighting for free speech are denied entry. All eyes on May 16th.
0:33

The lying rat that is Keir Starmer has just gave a speech following hundreds of his own party demanding he resign During it, he openly admitted he's banning anyone from entering the UK for our Unite The Kingdom and the West rally. This is including American citizens, he lied to your faces JD Vance Donald J. Trump This pathetic little man does not speak for the UK. Our borders remain wide open to invaders, yet people fighting for free speech are denied entry. All eyes on May 16th.

Tommy Robinson 🇬🇧

2,113,590 просмотров • 4 месяцев назад

Today the Federal Government in conjunction with the Coalition and with no resistance from One Nation passed a bill against Hate Speech. They gagged debate again and rammed the laws through with no scrutiny where we could ask questions. This is a direct attack on Free Speech. For the third parliamentary week in a row the major parties have devoted Parliament to controlling you, not serving you, by shutting you down. The Misinformation Law, the Online Safety Bill and now Hate Speech are all designed to censor people and push back on government overreach. The hate speech law is dangerous because it threatens freedom of speech by allowing the government to censor or punish individuals for expressing opinions that might be deemed offensive. Such laws are often vague and subjective, leading to potential abuse and selective enforcement. This creates a chilling effect where people fear speaking openly, stifling debate and free expression. Instead of combating hate, these laws can be weaponized to silence dissent and suppress unpopular viewpoints, ultimately undermining democratic values and individual liberties. People First stood in defence of open discourse, free speech, and the democratic principles that underpin our society. Upholding these values will foster trust and preserve the liberties that Australians hold dear. I am disappointed that One Nation did not stand with me on this issue. These laws extend to all people including children. When a motion was moved to exclude children under 14 from these laws, Malcolm Roberts voted against it. Children should not be penalised for the actions or thoughts of their parents. I challenge Malcolm and Pauline to debate me on the reasons why they support this law. It is government overreach plain and simple. There are already state laws against violence and inciting violence. Under the constitution, the States are responsible for policing crime not the Federal Government. There is no need for these laws. They will only be used to censor you. #auspol
2:19

Today the Federal Government in conjunction with the Coalition and with no resistance from One Nation passed a bill against Hate Speech. They gagged debate again and rammed the laws through with no scrutiny where we could ask questions. This is a direct attack on Free Speech. For the third parliamentary week in a row the major parties have devoted Parliament to controlling you, not serving you, by shutting you down. The Misinformation Law, the Online Safety Bill and now Hate Speech are all designed to censor people and push back on government overreach. The hate speech law is dangerous because it threatens freedom of speech by allowing the government to censor or punish individuals for expressing opinions that might be deemed offensive. Such laws are often vague and subjective, leading to potential abuse and selective enforcement. This creates a chilling effect where people fear speaking openly, stifling debate and free expression. Instead of combating hate, these laws can be weaponized to silence dissent and suppress unpopular viewpoints, ultimately undermining democratic values and individual liberties. People First stood in defence of open discourse, free speech, and the democratic principles that underpin our society. Upholding these values will foster trust and preserve the liberties that Australians hold dear. I am disappointed that One Nation did not stand with me on this issue. These laws extend to all people including children. When a motion was moved to exclude children under 14 from these laws, Malcolm Roberts voted against it. Children should not be penalised for the actions or thoughts of their parents. I challenge Malcolm and Pauline to debate me on the reasons why they support this law. It is government overreach plain and simple. There are already state laws against violence and inciting violence. Under the constitution, the States are responsible for policing crime not the Federal Government. There is no need for these laws. They will only be used to censor you. #auspol

Gerard Rennick

177,814 просмотров • 1 год назад

Censorship is not the solution. Albanese needs to deal with the failures of our immigration policy and intelligence agencies. Hate Crime laws were introduced into Parliament last year. The ones introduced this week will be just as ineffective. At the time I said they were unnecessary because State Governments deal with violent crimes. The new laws did nothing to stop the Bondi terror attack. As pointed out in the speech, the laws were designed to crack down psychological acts not violent acts. In particular the threshold for committing a crime was reduced from “intent” to “carelessness.” This makes the Hate Crime laws dangerous because they threaten freedom of speech by allowing the government to censor or punish individuals for expressing opinions that might be deemed offensive. Such laws are often vague and subjective, leading to potential abuse and selective enforcement. This creates a chilling effect where people fear speaking openly, stifling debate and free expression. Instead of combating hate, these laws can be weaponized to silence dissent and suppress unpopular viewpoints, ultimately undermining democratic values and individual liberties. Last year, People First was one of a few parties that stood in defence of open discourse, free speech, and the democratic principles that underpin our society. If you would like to help push back against government overreach please sign up today at or
3:27

Censorship is not the solution. Albanese needs to deal with the failures of our immigration policy and intelligence agencies. Hate Crime laws were introduced into Parliament last year. The ones introduced this week will be just as ineffective. At the time I said they were unnecessary because State Governments deal with violent crimes. The new laws did nothing to stop the Bondi terror attack. As pointed out in the speech, the laws were designed to crack down psychological acts not violent acts. In particular the threshold for committing a crime was reduced from “intent” to “carelessness.” This makes the Hate Crime laws dangerous because they threaten freedom of speech by allowing the government to censor or punish individuals for expressing opinions that might be deemed offensive. Such laws are often vague and subjective, leading to potential abuse and selective enforcement. This creates a chilling effect where people fear speaking openly, stifling debate and free expression. Instead of combating hate, these laws can be weaponized to silence dissent and suppress unpopular viewpoints, ultimately undermining democratic values and individual liberties. Last year, People First was one of a few parties that stood in defence of open discourse, free speech, and the democratic principles that underpin our society. If you would like to help push back against government overreach please sign up today at or

Gerard Rennick

26,393 просмотров • 8 месяцев назад

REPORT: The UK is now using terrorist-tracking AI to hunt anti-migrant protesters—proving once again that “hate speech” laws are just censorship rebranded. Software originally built to stop ISIS is now targeting Brits who speak out against asylum hotels or expose two-tier policing. A bombshell report from The Telegraph reveals that a secret Whitehall unit deployed anti-terror tools during the Southport riots to silence dissent. The firm behind the tech, Faculty, was hired to detect jihadist propaganda—now it flags posts critical of government policy. Even worse, leaked emails show UK officials pressuring TikTok to identify users with so-called “dangerous” views. And while U.S. leaders claim to be concerned, nearly identical censorship bills are quietly moving through Congress. When did free speech become a crime? The free world isn’t collapsing—it’s being rewired for obedience. Watch 's full report before this Orwellian blueprint reaches America.
6:37

REPORT: The UK is now using terrorist-tracking AI to hunt anti-migrant protesters—proving once again that “hate speech” laws are just censorship rebranded. Software originally built to stop ISIS is now targeting Brits who speak out against asylum hotels or expose two-tier policing. A bombshell report from The Telegraph reveals that a secret Whitehall unit deployed anti-terror tools during the Southport riots to silence dissent. The firm behind the tech, Faculty, was hired to detect jihadist propaganda—now it flags posts critical of government policy. Even worse, leaked emails show UK officials pressuring TikTok to identify users with so-called “dangerous” views. And while U.S. leaders claim to be concerned, nearly identical censorship bills are quietly moving through Congress. When did free speech become a crime? The free world isn’t collapsing—it’s being rewired for obedience. Watch 's full report before this Orwellian blueprint reaches America.

The Vigilant Fox 🦊

54,068 просмотров • 1 год назад

🚨UK Erupts… Brits Want Their Country Back: Hundreds of thousands marched on the streets of London against their government as they face mass oppression from their leaders. There is no freedom of speech, unvetted immigration, and mass surveillance in the UK. Over 12,000 people have been arrested because of social media posts. Keir Starmer banned 10+ journalists from entering the UK, and it’s now reported that a young man bled to death after being stabbed by a Sikh man who claimed he was racist to the police. Change is inevitable in the UK and the revolution has begun. Just watch this.
22:18

🚨UK Erupts… Brits Want Their Country Back: Hundreds of thousands marched on the streets of London against their government as they face mass oppression from their leaders. There is no freedom of speech, unvetted immigration, and mass surveillance in the UK. Over 12,000 people have been arrested because of social media posts. Keir Starmer banned 10+ journalists from entering the UK, and it’s now reported that a young man bled to death after being stabbed by a Sikh man who claimed he was racist to the police. Change is inevitable in the UK and the revolution has begun. Just watch this.

Nick shirley

630,513 просмотров • 4 месяцев назад

🚨 “Ban Nick Shirley Bill” — AB 2624 A government that moves to limit transparency is a government that has something to hide. AB 2624: the “Ban Nick Shirley Bill” raises serious concerns about the future of investigative journalism in California. This bill would expand restrictions around recording and documenting inside certain facilities, including organizations that receive government funding. In practice, that means journalists and independent investigators could face legal penalties simply for documenting what’s happening inside taxpayer-funded operations. Think about that. The very people trying to expose fraud, abuse, or mismanagement could be the ones punished. This bill is backed by CHIRLA—an organization that has received millions in taxpayer funding over the years while also taking strong and often controversial positions on immigration policy and enforcement. Now the same ecosystem benefiting from public dollars is supporting legislation that could limit scrutiny and reduce transparency. Californians deserve the opposite. If taxpayer money is being spent, the public has a right to know how it’s being used. Journalists should be protected for exposing the truth—not threatened with penalties. Transparency isn’t optional
1:16

🚨 “Ban Nick Shirley Bill” — AB 2624 A government that moves to limit transparency is a government that has something to hide. AB 2624: the “Ban Nick Shirley Bill” raises serious concerns about the future of investigative journalism in California. This bill would expand restrictions around recording and documenting inside certain facilities, including organizations that receive government funding. In practice, that means journalists and independent investigators could face legal penalties simply for documenting what’s happening inside taxpayer-funded operations. Think about that. The very people trying to expose fraud, abuse, or mismanagement could be the ones punished. This bill is backed by CHIRLA—an organization that has received millions in taxpayer funding over the years while also taking strong and often controversial positions on immigration policy and enforcement. Now the same ecosystem benefiting from public dollars is supporting legislation that could limit scrutiny and reduce transparency. Californians deserve the opposite. If taxpayer money is being spent, the public has a right to know how it’s being used. Journalists should be protected for exposing the truth—not threatened with penalties. Transparency isn’t optional

David Tangipa

45,165 просмотров • 5 месяцев назад

🚨 MEGYN KELLY EXPLODES AT STARMER: “THIS IS F*CKING BULLSH*T!”🔥 Megyn Kelly just went ballistic on Keir Starmer’s censorious Labour government for their authoritarian crackdown on free speech, banning critics left, right and centre while Britain drowns in controversy! In a fiery rant with Piers Morgan, Kelly slammed the UK authorities for shutting down an Oxford debate about Islam and the ban of Cenk Uygur and Hasan Piker for Israel criticism. She says these debates are very important in the uk because of the growing Muslim population and some extremely controversial issues around that and “you’re not aloud to talk about it!” “How are you going to solve anything if you’re not allowed to talk about it?” She says it’s “hypocritical and outrageous and fcking bullsh*t” which needs to stop. She rightfully says the government should have absolutely no say over whay the opinions are in your head or the opinions you speak unless it actually hurts people, physically or via employment etc. Britain’s free speech is dying under Starmer. When debate is banned, problems fester and explode.
1:37

🚨 MEGYN KELLY EXPLODES AT STARMER: “THIS IS F*CKING BULLSH*T!”🔥 Megyn Kelly just went ballistic on Keir Starmer’s censorious Labour government for their authoritarian crackdown on free speech, banning critics left, right and centre while Britain drowns in controversy! In a fiery rant with Piers Morgan, Kelly slammed the UK authorities for shutting down an Oxford debate about Islam and the ban of Cenk Uygur and Hasan Piker for Israel criticism. She says these debates are very important in the uk because of the growing Muslim population and some extremely controversial issues around that and “you’re not aloud to talk about it!” “How are you going to solve anything if you’re not allowed to talk about it?” She says it’s “hypocritical and outrageous and fcking bullsh*t” which needs to stop. She rightfully says the government should have absolutely no say over whay the opinions are in your head or the opinions you speak unless it actually hurts people, physically or via employment etc. Britain’s free speech is dying under Starmer. When debate is banned, problems fester and explode.

J Stewart

123,245 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

Here is Attorney General Pamela Bondi’s “hate speech” statement in full context. The broader context does not attenuate what is fundamentally wrong about what she is proposing. She confounds university *policy* with criminal prosecution of “hate speech”. She confounds “hate” *crime* with “hate *speech*”. And she actually contradicts herself by specifically acknowledging how Charlie Kirk’s political messaging was seen as “obscene” to others. Nobody wants the government prosecution of “hate speech”. If you want to know where that road goes, look at the United Kingdom or Canada. People want the application of *existing law*. More law = less justice. I cannot purport to claim what Charlie would have wanted. But for Pam to suggest Charlie would have wanted government criminalization of so-called “hate speech” is fundamentally antithetical to everything Charlie did in his life. Bondi has screwed up at every step of her stewardship of the DOJ. She is unfit for the position.
2:35

Here is Attorney General Pamela Bondi’s “hate speech” statement in full context. The broader context does not attenuate what is fundamentally wrong about what she is proposing. She confounds university *policy* with criminal prosecution of “hate speech”. She confounds “hate” *crime* with “hate *speech*”. And she actually contradicts herself by specifically acknowledging how Charlie Kirk’s political messaging was seen as “obscene” to others. Nobody wants the government prosecution of “hate speech”. If you want to know where that road goes, look at the United Kingdom or Canada. People want the application of *existing law*. More law = less justice. I cannot purport to claim what Charlie would have wanted. But for Pam to suggest Charlie would have wanted government criminalization of so-called “hate speech” is fundamentally antithetical to everything Charlie did in his life. Bondi has screwed up at every step of her stewardship of the DOJ. She is unfit for the position.

Viva Frei

62,181 просмотров • 1 год назад

🚨 STARMER IS OUT OF CONTROL—BRITAIN IS SLIDING INTO DICTATORSHIP! 🚨 🔴 Keir Starmer’s Britain is unrecognizable—he’s locking up journalists, censoring free speech, and allowing convicted foreign paedophiles to stay in the UK while silencing his own people. 🔴 This is not leadership. This is tyranny. 🔴 Judges are prioritizing the ‘welfare’ of foreign criminals over the safety of British children, while Starmer cracks down on those who dare to speak out. 🔥 THE UK IS BECOMING A DYSTOPIA—AND STARMER IS TO BLAME! 🔥 📢 WHAT THIS MEANS: ⚠️ British citizens are being treated like criminals for speaking the truth, while actual criminals walk free. ⚠️ Free speech is under siege—if you question Starmer’s regime, you’re a target. ⚠️ This is not democracy. This is the beginning of an authoritarian nightmare. 💥 HOW FAR WILL THIS GO? HOW MUCH MORE WILL BRITS TAKE? 💥 🚨 This is not just about politics anymore—this is about the future of Britain. Starmer is drunk on power, and the people MUST push back! 🚨 Ben Habib JD Vance
1:35

🚨 STARMER IS OUT OF CONTROL—BRITAIN IS SLIDING INTO DICTATORSHIP! 🚨 🔴 Keir Starmer’s Britain is unrecognizable—he’s locking up journalists, censoring free speech, and allowing convicted foreign paedophiles to stay in the UK while silencing his own people. 🔴 This is not leadership. This is tyranny. 🔴 Judges are prioritizing the ‘welfare’ of foreign criminals over the safety of British children, while Starmer cracks down on those who dare to speak out. 🔥 THE UK IS BECOMING A DYSTOPIA—AND STARMER IS TO BLAME! 🔥 📢 WHAT THIS MEANS: ⚠️ British citizens are being treated like criminals for speaking the truth, while actual criminals walk free. ⚠️ Free speech is under siege—if you question Starmer’s regime, you’re a target. ⚠️ This is not democracy. This is the beginning of an authoritarian nightmare. 💥 HOW FAR WILL THIS GO? HOW MUCH MORE WILL BRITS TAKE? 💥 🚨 This is not just about politics anymore—this is about the future of Britain. Starmer is drunk on power, and the people MUST push back! 🚨 Ben Habib JD Vance

Jim Ferguson

337,667 просмотров • 1 год назад

🚨IS FREE SPEECH ABOUT TO BECOME THE NEXT BATTLE BETWEEN BRITAIN AND AMERICA? Free speech and control of digital information have become defining issues across the Western alliance. The incoming Burnham government will inherit Britain's increasingly aggressive system of online regulation, while the United States under President Trump places far greater emphasis on constitutional protections for free speech. That difference could become a major source of tension. Future disputes may centre on censorship, digital identity, platform regulation, encryption and the extraterritorial reach of Britain's Online Safety laws. American technology companies could find themselves under pressure to restrict content that is lawful in the United States simply because it can be accessed by users in Britain. Washington could view that as an attempt by a foreign government to influence speech protected under the U.S. Constitution. THIS IS NO LONGER A THEORETICAL DEBATE. The future of free speech, digital sovereignty and who controls online information may become one of the defining issues shaping the relationship between Britain and the United States in the years ahead.
1:14

🚨IS FREE SPEECH ABOUT TO BECOME THE NEXT BATTLE BETWEEN BRITAIN AND AMERICA? Free speech and control of digital information have become defining issues across the Western alliance. The incoming Burnham government will inherit Britain's increasingly aggressive system of online regulation, while the United States under President Trump places far greater emphasis on constitutional protections for free speech. That difference could become a major source of tension. Future disputes may centre on censorship, digital identity, platform regulation, encryption and the extraterritorial reach of Britain's Online Safety laws. American technology companies could find themselves under pressure to restrict content that is lawful in the United States simply because it can be accessed by users in Britain. Washington could view that as an attempt by a foreign government to influence speech protected under the U.S. Constitution. THIS IS NO LONGER A THEORETICAL DEBATE. The future of free speech, digital sovereignty and who controls online information may become one of the defining issues shaping the relationship between Britain and the United States in the years ahead.

Jim Ferguson

13,217 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

🚨 THIS IS THE LINE IN THE SAND Ben Habib is right to sound the alarm. Rebranding Islamophobia as “anti-Muslimness” isn’t about protecting people — it’s about shielding an ideology from scrutiny. It quietly re-introduces blasphemy laws, elevates one religion above all others, and criminalises debate in a country built on free speech. If one belief system gains special legal protection, it gains power. If criticism becomes unlawful, truth becomes dangerous. And if Christianity — the cultural and constitutional foundation of Britain — is left unprotected, it will be sidelined by law. This isn’t tolerance. It’s legal asymmetry. It’s speech control by stealth. And it will reshape Britain permanently if unchallenged. Ben Habib and Advance UK are doing what opposition is supposed to do: draw the line before it’s crossed. Free speech dies quietly — unless people refuse to let it. Advance UK Ben Habib
4:12

🚨 THIS IS THE LINE IN THE SAND Ben Habib is right to sound the alarm. Rebranding Islamophobia as “anti-Muslimness” isn’t about protecting people — it’s about shielding an ideology from scrutiny. It quietly re-introduces blasphemy laws, elevates one religion above all others, and criminalises debate in a country built on free speech. If one belief system gains special legal protection, it gains power. If criticism becomes unlawful, truth becomes dangerous. And if Christianity — the cultural and constitutional foundation of Britain — is left unprotected, it will be sidelined by law. This isn’t tolerance. It’s legal asymmetry. It’s speech control by stealth. And it will reshape Britain permanently if unchallenged. Ben Habib and Advance UK are doing what opposition is supposed to do: draw the line before it’s crossed. Free speech dies quietly — unless people refuse to let it. Advance UK Ben Habib

Jim Ferguson

63,699 просмотров • 8 месяцев назад