TorquayFans.com | Torquay United Fans Forum

As journalist Glen Greenwald says, it should be a major scandal.

The UK and USA around the world constantly denounce other countries for abusing and failing to protect press freedoms. But at the same time our own governments are engaged in a major assault on journalism.

The top levels of the UK government including the Prime Minister, recently authorised security officials to threaten the editor of the Guardian in the most brutal and thuggish way, forcing the paper to destroy hard disks containing the product of its journalistic research, the alternative being the closure of the newspaper through the courts under National Security legislation.

The press is one of the important guardians of our freedoms, and attacks on press freedoms are attacks on us all. The prosecution of whistleblowers, the criminalisation of journalists for refusing to name their sources, among other continual pressures, all create a climate of fear which imposes self-censorship and takes us inevitably towards a state of totalitarianism. This is exemplified by the recent arrest and detention of Greenwald's partner at Heathrow airport.

Power corrupts, and those in power seek ever more control over our lives. The Orwellian surveillance and internet encryption-breaking measures introduced by GCHQ and the NSA, forcing encryption companies to include 'back-door' entries by snoopers into our legitimate private communications and financial transactions, are not only another step down the totalitarian road, they put us all at risk from hackers, crooks and foreign intelligence spies.

It's easy to keep our heads down, pretend these problems won't affect us, and carry on with our everyday lives. These things creep up on us unawares, and there will come a time when it's too late to make a stand against them. The least we can do is lobby our MPs, and elect representatives who truly speak for all the people. Me, I'm thinking of emigration, far away from so-called western civilisation..!!

couldn't agree more.

I find it incredible that the press over here haven't been making more of this. It violates the 4th Amendment of the Constitution (which essentially prohibits the state from making unreasonable searches or seizure of property without probable cause) but the media seem to be very quiet.

Tell the Americans that you'd like to make sure there aren't so many guns lying about, and they go mental and start frothing at the mouth. Reveal the extent to which their personal liberties have been infringed upon and it's almost as if everyone shrugs and says "oh, it must be for our own good"

I'm with the pair of you. When I tell friends about this kind of stuff they just shrug their shoulders as if there's nothing to be worried about. It's that kind of response that these people count on to get their own way and the power they've gained through the ignorance of the masses will never be given back.

EU to ban anti-feminist speech and other freedoms. Totalitarianism almost here!:
http://www.avoiceformen.com/updates/eu- ... st-speech/ (The associated comments are also interesting).

The vacation of the European Union’s institutions is over. Consequently, the Eurocrats are now back at trying to stamp out more individual rights from the population and increase the power of Brussels over the peoples of Europe. The EU is a constant generator of totalitarian measures so even if the resolution that attempts to stamp out individual economic freedom will fail, the next attack on individual freedoms is already drafted.

The EU’s latest document is a called: “The European framework national statute for the promotion of tolerance”[4] which is a document elaborated with a view to being enacted by the legislatures of all the 28 unfortunate nations that are members of this club. What’s wrong with “promotion of tolerance” one might ask. As you will see in the following lines, “promotion of tolerance” means something entirely different than what it means to reasonable people. And basically the entire document looks more like a statue of the Thought Police and the Ministry of Truth.

In the Section 1 of the document, the EU defines its terms. So terms like “hate crime”, “group” and “tolerance” are being introduced. Of particular interest is the EU’s definition of “group libel”[5]:

“Group libel” means: defamatory comments made in public and aimed against a group as defined in paragraph (a) – or members thereof – with a view to inciting to violence, slandering the group, holding it to ridicule or subjecting it to false charges.

As we will soon see, feminists are also de facto part of the “group” notion – so holding feminists to ridicule, as they deserve, will now be a crime. We know this from the Section 2e of the document which says[6]:

The purpose of this Statute is to: [...]

e) Take concrete action to combat intolerance, in particular with a view to eliminating racism, colour bias, ethnic discrimination, religious intolerance, totalitarian ideologies, xenophobia, anti-Semitism, anti-feminism and homophobia.

Yes, you read it correctly. The European Union is dedicating an entire law to force the governments of 28 nations to take concrete action to combat anti-feminism. The other elements of the list should also be looked with suspicion despite the fact that they seem well-intended. For instance, campaigning against male circumcision can bring you criminal charges of “Islamophobia” under this law. Campaigning against female circumcision, though, will bring you a big pat on the back from the politically correct Eurofanatics, despite the fact that the practice is illegal everywhere in Europe. Also, the “totalitarian ideologies” is quite vague and contradictory, given that the EU itself sponsors Communist organizations, it’s being lead by a Maoist and now attempts to deem feminism as a State truth.

In the Section 3, the one dealing with the guaranties of rights, the EU explains us clearly that it wants the State to make sure that no individual dares to be an anti-feminist[7]:

Tolerance (…) shall be guaranteed towards any group (…), especially in the enjoyment of the following human rights:

Explanatory Notes: (…) Guarantee of tolerance must be understood not only as a vertical relationship (Government-to-individuals) but also as a horizontal relationship (group-to-group and person-to-person). It is the obligation of the Government to ensure that intolerance is not practised either in vertical or in horizontal relationships.

Therefore, not wanting to hire feminist ideologues, which tend to be competent at exactly nothing, can now bring you a criminal lawsuit. Also, the rights allowed under the Section 3 of this document can be limited under the Section 4 of this document if they happen to create inconveniences to the sexual trade union of feminism. But they are perfectly fine if they destroy men’s lives though. Section 4d explains it quite clearly[8]:

The rights guaranteed in Section 3 are subject to the following limitations, applied in a proportionate manner as necessary in a democratic society:[...]

(d) Public morals.

Explanatory Note: Examples: tolerance does not denote acceptance of such practices as female circumcision, forced marriage, polygamy or any form of exploitation or domination of women.

What is not explicitly forbidden means it is implicitly allowed. And since the explanatory note of the Section 4 states that the list is exhaustive – the only logical conclusion that one can draw is that tolerance means acceptance of such practices as male circumcision, polyandry or any form of exploitation or domination of men and this is even necessary in a democratic society. You can’t make this stuff up! And if this amount of feminist privilege isn’t enough, here’s some more. The Section 6 of the document, dealing with implementation explicitly tells us that the State must make female privilege the rule of the land.

The section 6a reads: To ensure implementation of this Statute, the Government shall:[...]

a) Be responsible for the special protection of vulnerable and disadvantaged groups.

Explanatory Notes:
(i) Members of vulnerable and disadvantaged groups are entitled to a special protection, additional to the general protection that has to be provided by the Government to every person within the State.
(ii) The special protection afforded to members of vulnerable and disadvantaged groups may imply a preferential treatment. Strictly speaking, this preferential treatment goes beyond mere respect and acceptance lying at the root of tolerance (…). Still, the present provision is justified by the linkage between historical intolerance and vulnerability.

Does this kind of rhetoric sound familiar? Because it sure does to the World War II veterans who fought for the freedom and the independence of several European nations in order for now to be told that they are privileged for having seen their fellow men being killed or tortured by the State. It is an act of extreme naïveté to think that this provision will not be used to advance the cause of the long march through institutions of feminism and its connected ideologies. The EU makes it perfectly clear that this is the case.

Section 6b reads: Without prejudice to existing control mechanism, set up a special administrative unit in order to supervise the implementation of this Statute.[...]

Explanatory note:
ii) The special administrative unit should preferably operate within the Ministry of Justice (although the Ministry of the Interior is another reasonable possibility).

It is a chance of one in 30 billion for such a body not to be lead by a politically correct ideologue. Also, the Ministries of the Interior are the ones managing the secret services in most (if not all) European nations. In Sweden there have already been reports of the FRA (the Sweden’s NSA) closely supervising Fathers’ Rights Activists in a STASI-like manner. What makes you think that this might not come to your country next if this law is passed?

Section 7 deals with penal sanctions and basically opens the door to criminal charges and arrests for people who dare to disagree with the politically correct ideologues that run the European Union. Section 7a reads:

The following acts will be regarded as criminal offences punishable as aggravated crimes[9]:

(i) Hate crimes (…)
(ii) Incitement to violence against a group(…)
(iii) Group libel as defined in Section 1(b).
(iv) Overt approval of a totalitarian ideology, xenophobia or anti-Semitism.
(v) Public approval or denial of the Holocaust.
(vi) Public approval or denial of any other act of genocide the existence of which has been determined by an international criminal court or tribunal

So, basically, ridiculing feminism shall be regarded as a criminal offence punishable as aggravated crime. This is exactly how the Criminal Code of Romania looked like during the Marxist-Leninist dictatorship. In the 1950s, one could get up to 10 years of imprisonment for speaking against “the social order.” The social order was Stalinism back then. Now it’s Marxism-Feminism. The differences between them are becoming increasingly harder to notice.

Also, the EU itself is in violation of Section 7a(ii) and Section 7a(vi), considering that class warfare is openly promoted by various committees and subcommittees of the European Parliament and considering that the crimes against humanity committed in Europe by the Communist regimes are publicly denied by the EU[10].

If you are a minor and dare to hold anti-feminist views and express them, the Big Maoist Brother has a special place for you designed by the Thought Police – an indoctrination camp. Well, they don’t call it like that but the purpose is identical. Section 7b reads:

Juveniles convicted of committing crimes listed in paragraph (a) will be required to undergo a rehabilitation programme designed to instill in them a culture of tolerance.

So if a 14 year old boy dares to notice that women are not oppressed in Europe and that the education system in which he is forced to go is centered around girls and girls only, the boys will be sent to a “rehabilitation programme” to instill in him a “culture of tolerance.” The Soviet Union had a similar program for those who dared to disagree with the Marxist-Leninist approach. It was considered that those who disagreed must be mentally challenged or something else has to be wrong with them to disagree with the wonders of scientific socialism. The same line of reasoning is used here as well. Since feminist ideologues know all too well that their ideology is so thin that even a prepubescent child can see through their lies, they are deeming all dissenters as being sick and in urgent need of “rehabilitation.”

This is how totalitarianism consolidates itself!

And since some people might be reluctant to send people to jail or to “rehabilitation programs” for speaking the truth, the EU takes care to introduce a carrot as well to stimulate the allegations to skyrocket. Section 7f reads[11]:

(f) Free legal aid will be offered to victims of crimes listed in paragraph (a), irrespective of qualification in terms of impecuniosity

So, basically, one can sue anyone for holding anti-feminist views, demand money, claim to be a victim, send the “offender” to jail and all this on taxpayers’ money. Isn’t the EU a wonderful place?

Section 8 deals with “education” and basically demands that everyone be subjected to politically correct propaganda starting with 7 year old children in elementary school and ending with judges and lawyers.

The last section of the document, Section 9, deals with mass-media and demands that all mass-media be remodeled using the ideological lens of the statists that run the European Union and kindly makes another subtle suggestion that the Internet should be regulated – for your own safety, of course. Because heaven forbid you might see something you don’t like on the Internet!

The problems with this document aren’t only related to feminist ideology being shoved down the throats of 28 unfortunate nations since it also contains provisions that basically grant special privileges and entitlements to immigrants over the taxpayers. It’s like me coming into your house without your consent and then have the State put you in the bathroom while granting the rest of the house to me.

Also, the first Section basically makes satire illegal – even satire of historical figures (if those figures happen to be non-white men). The whole document is a mess for any person who doesn’t subscribe to political correctness. But even for the feminist-orientated content alone this document is worth opposing fiercely.

Our most basic right – freedom of speech and conscience – is severely under threat right now and, as usual, the mainstream media remains silent about the issue.

The European Union, albeit a totalitarian body, is a very slow institution. Consequently, it takes a lot of time for such nonsense to end up on the voting table of the European Parliament and it can be dismissed at any of the bureaucracies that goes through. This process can take up to 2 years. For instance, the proposal to stamp out economic freedom has first been made by the European Commission (the only body that has the right to propose legislation – just like in the USSR the Politburo had the sole right to summon a vote in the Supreme Soviet) in 2011.

If we are to follow the EU’s usual protocol, sometime this month another meeting regarding this document will take place after the ECTR presentation that took place on September 17[12]. At least one more meeting with FEMM committee[13] (and yes, the European Parliament actually has a committee called FEMM) must take place though it is not unlikely to have this document also go through another judicial committee, even though the September 17 LIBE meeting is said to have included the opinion of ”Group of Eminent Legal Experts” and this could be deemed enough.

After these committees, the next big step is have it go through the Council of the European Union (also known informally as the Council of Ministers). These long names and acronyms might seem complicated (and arguably they are) but the main idea is that after the ideologues in the small committees are done putting their totalitarian worldview on paper, this document needs to be seen by the Ministers of the 28 nations that are members of this club.

The Council of Ministers doesn’t have clear standing members and its membership varies depending on the topic discussed. But its composition is always the same: one minister from each country that belongs to the EU. Most likely, this document will be discussed when the Council will meet to discuss social issues – which means that each country will be represented by a Minister from the social issues (Minister of Welfare, Minister of Women – for the UK and Germany -, Minister of Labor, etc.). Sometimes a secretary of State is sent to represent the country in the Council though these situations are rarer.

What can you do now? Since the next step in the foreseeable future is the discussion of this document in the Council of Ministers, the most effective thing that you can do is to start contacting members of your government, especially those that deal with social issues (who are more likely to represent your country in the Council when this document will be discussed) and tell them why do you think this document should be rejected altogether. We will also publish various scripts but it would be even better if you’d write them in you own words. Also, check the official directory of the European Union[14] to get the name and the contacts of those officials from your country that regularly attend the meetings of the Council of Ministers and start with them.

There are countries that are due to hold elections (Germany comes to mind now). If you live in one of these countries that will hold elections in the next 12 months, do no hesitate to let your elected officials know that you will purposefully campaign against them if they uphold this document. Politicians don’t care about your freedoms or about men – but they do care about votes!

These kinds of documents are usually passed without the national parliaments even being asked. However, the national parliaments, if they’re notified by the citizens, can pass a resolution forcing the government to adopt a certain position under the threat of a censure motion (a motion that can sack the government). This is unlikely to happen in big countries such as Germany and France or in impeccably progressive countries like Sweden. However, in smaller countries, such as Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Slovakia, Slovenia or Luxembourg, this is quite feasible. This is an option for you to consider if you live in a country where this kind of activism has real chances of success. If this kind of activism succeeds even in one country – that’s a huge deal because in the Council of Ministers (unlike the European Parliament) each country gets an equal vote, as opposed to the European Parliament where countries have unequal numbers of representatives depending on their population.

Also, probably amongst the first thing that you should do is to familiarize yourself with the way the Council of the European Union (or the Council of Ministers) works[15].

Civil disobedience. Make a blog with anti-feminist content. You can start by making this issue known in your native tongue. This is crucial for the success in defeating this bill. Also, if possible, make flyers with anti-feminist content (preferably by making this bill known) and distribute them. Read the bill carefully. You will find enough things to make non-MRA individuals join your efforts. Adapt your material to every subset of audience you wish to appeal. It is important for opposition to this bill to appear in as many languages and countries of the EU as possible.

If you cannot do street activism for various reasons, make sure you make your newly created blog known. It doesn’t matter if you feel you are not a good writer. Just start writing and spamming everyone with your newly created blog. For more efficiency and increased appeal to audience – you can even make the blog to be single-issue, strictly for opposing this bill.

Speak publicly as much as possible against the bill. The power of words is unimaginable, that’s why the powers that be want the words banned. You don’t have to be a good public speaker. Just open your mouth in casual circles whenever the situation is fit. For instance, if you hear someone in a store saying “a woman came to rob my house” tell them that they might end up in jail for saying that and direct them to this article or your blog or any other resource that talks extensively about this bill.

Join us this Friday on The Voice of Europe where we will be talking more about this bill and will suggest more ways of activism. Also, if you have other ideas, feel free to let us know in the comments or, even better, call in this Friday on the radio program.

This has to be stopped! And its demise starts with you!

How do you keep your tinfoil hat from blowing away in the wind?

Matt.

ferrarilover wrote:How do you keep your tinfoil hat from blowing away in the wind?
Matt.

You're definitely going to vote for UKIP then...??

I'd rather eat my own penis.

Matt.

ferrarilover wrote:I'd rather eat my own penis.

Matt.

Not like it's had any other offers

Just heard Nigel Farage's speech at the UKIP conference: Excellent; just what this country needs, speaking on topics about which the other three main political parties want to stifle debate.

No doubt the EU, the BBC, the media, and the other political parties will seek to smear and demonise and denigrate Farage and UKIP and their policies between now and the coming elections.

In fact they've already started, making a big thing about Godfrey Bloom cracking a joke (following his recent 'Bongo Bongo Land' remarks) about women not cleaning behind their fridges, referring to them as 'sluts', this in a jocular situation where he was effectively prompted into the remark by a female, with everybody laughing, and the event recorded by the feminist Huffington Post. Every political party has one or two idiots. This man obviously doesn't have the brains to realise he was being set up. He has rightly been suspended by UKIP before he produces any further damaging utterances. The media will try to misrepresent UKIP as a party of racist and sexist politicians. But the electorate are more intelligent than that.

Gullscorer wrote:Just heard Nigel Farage's speech at the UKIP conference. Just what this country needs.

What, another public school educated former City trader who wants to kick the teeth out of anyone poorer than him and his multi-millionaire backers? We've already got enough of them ruling over us as it is. 'Speaking for the common man' my arse...

UKIP always give the impression of making up their policies and the statistics to back them up as they go along, and one of their senior blokes was on the radio this morning and as good as admitted it - after he'd dealt with all the headcases they've had to suspend from the party over recent years...

The thing about UKIP is it's one of the newest mainstream political parties, so there were always going to be teething problems, particularly in the face of the onslaughts it has endured from other parties and much of the media. The fact remains that UKIP is attracting support from across the whole spectrum of British society, right, left, centre, rich, poor, even me! Given a choice between Farage, Clegg, Cameron, and the other one whose name I forget, I know who I'd like to see leading the country over the next few years.

Is your arse really speaking for the common man, or are you just farting..?? :na: =D

Gullscorer wrote:Is your arse really speaking for the common man, or are you just farting..?? :na: =D

I used a well-known British colloquialism to criticise UKIP as a party. You've made a clumsy attempt to twist that into a childish personal dig.

Very UKIP.

Oh dear.. Another one who can pietistically dish it out (what was your opening remark if not a personal dig at Nigel Farage?) but cannot take it back in good humour..!! Console yourself with the thought that my language was reasonably moderate.. =D

Actually, Farage seems to be the only one of our major political leaders who ever had a job in his life outside of politics.

Ukip are almost as dangerous as the Green Party. They have one main line of attack and they will sacrifice everything else in pursuit of that. Once they've demonised all the Muslims and withdrawn us from the protection of Europe, then what? What about the roads or press regulation or the cost of the TV license or anything else. They know they won't be elected, so they can say what they like. They can make all the empty, ill thought-out, basist promises they like to appeal to the Daily Mail reading faux middle class, but once they're in, the realities of day to day politics will be entirely beyond them. We saw a similar thing, but to a much lesser extent with the Lib Dems. They spent years promising to give out free this and massively increased that, then they came to some power and found that they had to make good on their promises. Unfortunately, the cost of doing all they had promised was greater than the amount of money in existence, so they couldn't do it.

Theoretical politics is lovely, we all like to indulge in it with our mates down the pub
However, the reality of the world doesn't allow for it. We'd all give free health care to everyone always and build a million miles of new road and turf out all those who really shouldn't be here and lock up burglars for 100,000 years. Sadly, the are so many hurdles between Eutopia and reality that we have to be content with some mediocre middle ground.

Matt.

Matt makes some good points, especially about smaller political parties being a bit utopian in how they'd solve all known ills if only we'd elect them to power.

It's something we have to weigh up when deciding where to put our cross on the ballot paper. Are we being presented with realistic and achievable goals or are we being asked to vote for a pipe dream ?. But while political parties not being able to do what they said they'd do is frustrating and annoying to the electorate, I think we've reached a stage where the underhand tactics of doing a load of stuff that they didn't even hint they intended doing is now deemed to be the more corrupt practice of the two.

Your average Daily Mail reading UKIP voter will claim the major parties never let on for a moment that they planned selling us out to Europe and putting an end to Britain as a self governing nation. They will claim that there is virtually an open border immigration policy that the British people never voted in favour of and that no Party dared admit it was what they were proposing. Over breakfast today they'll have read that 2 million UK passports have been handed to foreigners since the year 2000, and that one immigrant is made a British citizen every two and a half minutes.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... nutes.html

They know that they didn't vote for that, and when they speak to their friends and family they find that they don't recall having the chance to vote for or against it either. Exaggerated claims as to what you'll do when you're in power are undoubtedly misleading, but some of the things that the Tories and Labour did, which massively affected British Society, were not even put forward as theoretical politics to be debated, or for people to consider whether they were achievable or not.

I can't speak for UKIP voters but I guess that if Farage could deliver the really big prize of once again allowing the British to decide on their own futures, and make their important decisions and laws without needing permission from those across the channel, then they won't even care if he's got a policy concerning the TV licence, let alone whether it's good, bad, or indifferent.