Free speech in peril – Extremism Disruption Orders

So the Telegraph tells us today that an MP has answered contact from a constituent by telling them that free speech is protected by the new Extremism Disruption Orders (EDOs). He is quoted as saying in the article (Link) [my emphasis added]:

“He wrote: “I believe that everybody in society has a right to free speech and to express their views without fear of persecution.

The EDOs will not serve to limit but rather to guarantee it: it is those who seek to stop other people expressing their beliefs who will be targeted.

“Let me give you an example, one which lots of constituents have been writing about – talking about gay marriage in schools.”

He went on to insist that Christians with traditional views on marriage are “perfectly entitled to express their views” but suggests it could constitute “hate speech” in some contexts.

“The new legislation specifically targets hate speech, so teachers will still be free to express their understanding of the term ‘marriage’, and their moral opposition to its use in some situations without breaking the new laws.

“The EDOs, in this case, would apply to a situation where a teacher was specifically teaching that gay marriage is wrong.”

So hang on a minute… You’re saying “The EDOs will not serve to limit but rather to guarantee it [free speech]: it is those who seek to stop other people expressing their beliefs who will be targeted.” and cannot see the irony that it is YOU who is preventing free speech – the government itself! What he has said there simply is not true, nor is it safe to assume that is how the orders will be used. Why would they be? A government with the power to introduce any law it feels like, and then use an order (not a trial before peers, I might add) to prevent you disagreeing with it. This is classic Statism, classic Communism – we should all be very concerned about this.

While the queen retains what she claims is her ‘Divine right to rule‘, you and I who believe in God’s Word, are going to be prevented from speaking the truth by her very government.

I’ll end with a quote from the Secular society from the same article, above [my emphasis added]:

Keith Porteous Wood, executive director of the National Secular Society said: “If EDOs really could be used to prevent teachers from talking about same-sex marriage, unless they are inciting violence, they are an even greater threat to freedom of expression than I had feared.

“To suggest that EDOs guarantee freedom of expression [as Mark Spencer suggests] is not just inaccurate, it is the opposite of the truth; they are the largest threat to freedom of expression I have ever seen in Britain.

“The spreading of hatred is far too vague a concept to be the basis of legal sanctions, and would be worryingly open to misuse, particularly by ideological opponents.”

And this is from a man who’s organisation supports gay marriage.

I have expressed my views on the Law of Moses before, but I’ll expand a little on it here. The Christian churches are very much to blame for the loss of our moral compass, and for where we find ourselves today. They have wanted, and continue to, pick and choose what they want to believe, and pass on to their congregations.

They want to say that homosexuality is wrong whilst making ham sandwiches for the church fete. They want to say that adultery is a sin, but have abandoned God’s Sabbath.

They have craved to nail whichever parts of the law seem onerous to them to Christ’s cross, on behalf of the flock they pastor. Yet God’s laws are nothing as compared to the numeousness of man’s laws, which he has put in it’s place, and which now keep changing by the wind of man’s morals, which blow around like the sands of the desert.

No wonder we are expected as Christians to bend ourselves to these winds of doctrine – we have thrown away God’s law, and yet decided to keep those parts which we feel are important – to God it is all important.

God Bless you



Lies of the cartels – ‘only a professional can give advice’

In North Carolina, you are about to be outlawed from sharing dietary or nutritional information with others. Yes, if you reversed your diabetes with diet, you will not be allowed to share that information with others – you will be breaking a new law.

free speechI quote from this article (Link):

“The same folks in North Carolina that tried to sue blogger Steve Cooksey simply for sharing information online about how to treat diabetes naturally are now going after all speech related to health and nutrition.

The North Carolina Board of Dietetics/Nutrition (NCBDN) has launched an all-out assault against free speech with its antithetically named “Modernize Dietetics/Nutrition Practice Act,” or House Bill 796, which would make it a crime to share health advice or food strategies with non-family members who are suffering from health conditions.

The bill, which has already passed its first reading in the North Carolina State Senate, would prohibit unlicensed individuals from offering “medical nutrition therapy,” which the proposed legislation defines as the “provision of nutrition care services for the purpose of managing or treating a medical condition.”

Recommending that a friend with an autistic child try the GAPS diet, for instance, would essentially be outlawed under HB 796, as only licensed dietitians would be permitted to dispense such nutrition advice. Or like with Steve Cooksey, teaching people how to overcome “incurable” diseases through diet and supplementation would be off limits under HB 796.”

I thought protectionism had been outlawed? No – only YOUR rights are infringed. Heaven help you if you reach out to help someone else.

In every way, we must surely be able to see by now that only God’s Law is righteous – that man’s laws are flawed, corrupt and corrupting. The very idea of this kind of protectionism in an industry which is so tiny (how many people would consider going to see a nutritionist?) should be offensive to us all.

If you are in North Carolina, please act now to stop this law being passed.

God Bless you