One of the things which marks a tyrant - or a tyrannical government - is fear: fear of individuals saying and writing things which the tyrant or the government do not want the people to hear or read.

Thus it is that such tyrants and such tyrannical governments make it illegal - a criminal offence - for individuals to say or write certain things. That is, they introduce laws which curtail and restrict free speech.
 

This is exactly what has happened in Britain: over the past thirty years, the various governments have introduced laws which take away our right of free speech,  which restrict what can be said or written. And more than that, they have made mere possession of certain literature, certain writings, a criminal offence. That is, a person can now be sent to prison for several years if it an be proved that they merely possessed literature which the government finds offensive.

This is tyrannical; this is a denial of freedom.

Of course, tyrants and tyrannical governments use clever propaganda to try and persuade the people they rule over that these tyrannical laws are "necessary"; some go further, and even claim that such denial and suppression of free speech is "morally justified" because the views they have outlawed, they have made illegal, are "abhorrent" or "evil" or whatever.

This is exactly what successive British governments have done. They have introduced tyrannical laws to suppress free speech on the grounds that any and all views those governments do not like - any and all political views which the government does not want the people to hear or read about- have been and are said to be "abhorrent" and "evil" and so are banned because they might "upset" or "hurt" or "offend" someone. That is, these governments have taken away the power of the people to make their own judgement about, their own decisions concerning, certain political matters, because the governments has decided that such views, such political opinions, might or will or could "upset" or "hurt"  or "offend" someone.

In effect, the governments have said, and are saying, to the people: "We regard you, the people, as children who must be protected from words or literature that we consider might upset you. We want you to hear and read only the nice things we have permitted."
 

These governments go on to say: "We are determined to keep treating you, the people, like children. So we have banned - and will continue to ban - all those political words or political literature or political writings we consider might offend you, and we will lock away in Prison all those nasty grown-ups who say or write such nasty political things that we consider might offend someone. We certainly will never allow you to listen to these nasty grown-ups or read their writings and literature because we never want you to make you own mind up about politics. We have taken care of all that for you. Now, children, isn't that nice of us?"
 
 

Dawn-Raids and Why Truth Does Not Matter in a Court of Law:

Our tyrannical governments have gone much, much further than the tyrants of history - so far, in fact, that what they have created is very similar to the repressive Stalinist government which existed in Russia not many decades ago. People are kept under surveillance; their mail is opened; their telephone calls monitored; and if the government suspects (note: suspects) a person may have done something, or said something or written something which that government does not like or has made illegal, then that person will be subject to a "dawn-raid" by the Police, their home searched, the person arrested and any dissident literature seized.

There then follows a "show trial" where the accused has to rely on - because of the legal jargon and the legal complexities of the case and the very nature of the Courts themselves - some Barrister to represent them, and where the truth of any statement made by the accused in the illegal literature is ruled to be "irrelevant". That is, the truth of what has been said, or written, or published is no defence: if what has been said or written is deemed illegal, then the person will be sent to Prison whether or not what was said or written is true. And the government calls such trials "fair" and such guilty verdicts "just"!
 
 

Suppressing Dissident Political Views:

The way which our  modern governments have suppressed opposing political views - the means whereby they have outlawed political views and opinions they do not like and do not want the people to hear - was and is by using the claim that such views, whether spoken or written about, involved "incitement" to "hatred".

Originally, these tyrannical laws which suppress free speech stated there has to be an "intent" by the person or persons. But when several Court cases showed that such "intent" was difficult to prove, the governments calmly introduced new laws which did away with the need to prove such "intent".  Thus, mere possession of dissident literature became illegal.

To incite is to "urge; to stir to action" while hatred, properly defined, is "dislike; ill-will; strong aversion towards".
 

What is particularly tyrannical in such laws as these is that to be found guilty, nothing actually has to happen "in the real world"; no people have to be physically hurt, or physically harmed in any way. That is, the person is found guilty on the basis that what was said or written might or could lead to such things. The so-called "intent" of the person is all that matters.  And the person does not actually have to have intended such things: that is, the word of the person as to whether or not they intended such things is regarded as irrelevant. What matters in a modern Court of Law is whether it is believed, according to the opinions of "experts" or the Police, or according to precedents set by previous criminal trials, that it was possible or likely that such a person did intend to cause such hatred.

This is unjust; it is unfair; it is dishonourable; it is tyrannical. It is against the whole tradition of Western justice.

What has happened is the tyrannical governments have introduced a new category of so-called crime: mental crime. That is, there does not have to be an actual physical crime, in the real world. There does not have to be actual verbal abuse directed at a specific person or persons who can be called as witnesses to say that such abuse occurred, or even that they themselves felt "threatened".

There does not even have to anyone, anywhere, who is actually offended; all there has to be is a belief, by some expert, some Police officer (who thus convince a Judge and Jury) that was was said or written showed a "dislike of; some ill-will toward; some strong aversion towards" some group or groups.

The argument is all about what might be caused; what might have been intended; and whether what was written or said does show a dislike of; some ill-will toward; some strong aversion towards some group or groups, even though no one, no person in the real world, was actually abused, offended, hurt, injured.

And even if a person or persons do claim they are offended or upset or hurt by some words, written or spoken, so what? That is, and always has been part of life, of being an adult. What kind of person can claim they have been so offended or so hurt or so upset by some words, written or spoken, that they want to see the person who said those words or who wrote those words put in Prison? Perhaps a churlish, surly, unruly, vindictive child?

This introduction of a new kind of mental crime is appalling; it is grossly unfair; it is grossly tyrannical. It is means of mental control, of creating a society where people are treated like children.
 

What Kind of World?
 

What kind of world is it where it is illegal, a criminal offence, to use words, written or spoken, which might cause someone "offence" and which might, just might, cause other people to do something?

What kind of world is it where someone can claim they have been so offended or so hurt or so upset by some words, written or spoken, that they demand that the person who said those words or who wrote those words be put in Prison?

What kind of world is it where the majority of people do not care about such things: when they allow people to be imprisoned for thought crimes, for merely having written or said something which the government of the day does not want the people to read or hear?

What kind of world is it where the majority of people do not care that their own government is treating them like children?

David Myatt