Please do not confuse the Uk deep state with the people of the Uk. I'm sure commentators here would not want to be blamed for the action of their own deep state.
Ahmed is part of a the power imposed on us from above, with no electoral accountability.
Only 20% of those eligible to vote voted for Starmer, (there was a significant abstention, some of them truthers), and that with our deep state importing ten to fifteen million mostly Labour voting immigrants against the express wishes of the electorate, as revealed in opinion polls, betrayed by every party,
I am pondering the dissonance of an advocate for censorship claiming the right of free speech to pursue his crusade for permissible-only speech. It boggles my mind. I will stop pondering it.
Thank you for reporting, Sayer Ji. I hope this will wake up some more people about what a treasure we have, and have fought to have, in the US Constitution.
Thank God I questioned everything and found the Dirty Dozen in the early days. Haven’t been sick a single day in 6 years and I credit what I learned listening to these brave folks!
Get this POS out of the USA, throw him back to the now hopelessly compromised UK. But lets remember, what goes around comes around! He will get a taste of his own gleefully dosed out poison sooner or later.
I so appreciate your coming forward about this use of transnational repression in order to silence you. It would be helpful if you also understood that when "legal" mechanisms fail, the enemies of truth and justice can and will utilize illegal forms of silencing, such as reported on here--https://hive.blog/politics/@activistpost/phelan-vs-cia Take good care and watch your back!
Isn't Ahmed's position on free speech somewhat similar to those persons conducting secondary boycotts and arguing their free speech rights to conduct such boycotts? After all censorship organizations typically close down advertising and other revenue sources by publicly listing those businesses/companies that are financially supporting the censorship target, the aim being to encourage the wider public from doing business with those businesses/companies. As i understand, secondary boycotts enjoy little or no 1st Amendment protection. Does this make sense?
The precedent set if Ahmed is deported will be used in the future to Administratively try to silence dissenting views that the government does not want anyone to hear. Ahmed's speech and conduct to deny well qualified doctors and scientists is gisgraceful, but should be counterd by MORE SPEECH pointing to his flaws and inconsistencies. He can be the foil we need to show how antidemocratic and authoritarian are his views and means to try to enforce them.
That is always a possibility, however, my understanding is that this person actively violated US citizens' rights in the US. I do not see that as the same thing as expressing an opinion. As in, someone saying "I think someone should pull all your teeth" while quite vivid and nasty, is free speech according to our Bill of Rights, and it is not the same as someone actually taking a wrench to your teeth. He actually applied the wrench, as it were.
Please do not confuse the Uk deep state with the people of the Uk. I'm sure commentators here would not want to be blamed for the action of their own deep state.
Ahmed is part of a the power imposed on us from above, with no electoral accountability.
Only 20% of those eligible to vote voted for Starmer, (there was a significant abstention, some of them truthers), and that with our deep state importing ten to fifteen million mostly Labour voting immigrants against the express wishes of the electorate, as revealed in opinion polls, betrayed by every party,
I am pondering the dissonance of an advocate for censorship claiming the right of free speech to pursue his crusade for permissible-only speech. It boggles my mind. I will stop pondering it.
Orwell is spinning in his grave listening to Ahmed justify himself.
Thank you for reporting, Sayer Ji. I hope this will wake up some more people about what a treasure we have, and have fought to have, in the US Constitution.
Should the UK Charity Commision be investigating the CCDH and reviewing their charitable status?
Then maybe putting them down as a rabid dangerous dog let slip by warlord Machiavellian politicians to cause havoc.
I’m from the U.K. We dint want this poisonous toad back. Send him to Iran.
Great to hear how many people were listening to The Dirty Dozen ,,, That’s how Effective You All Are 🙏
Thank God I questioned everything and found the Dirty Dozen in the early days. Haven’t been sick a single day in 6 years and I credit what I learned listening to these brave folks!
Get this POS out of the USA, throw him back to the now hopelessly compromised UK. But lets remember, what goes around comes around! He will get a taste of his own gleefully dosed out poison sooner or later.
I so appreciate your coming forward about this use of transnational repression in order to silence you. It would be helpful if you also understood that when "legal" mechanisms fail, the enemies of truth and justice can and will utilize illegal forms of silencing, such as reported on here--https://hive.blog/politics/@activistpost/phelan-vs-cia Take good care and watch your back!
Isn't Ahmed's position on free speech somewhat similar to those persons conducting secondary boycotts and arguing their free speech rights to conduct such boycotts? After all censorship organizations typically close down advertising and other revenue sources by publicly listing those businesses/companies that are financially supporting the censorship target, the aim being to encourage the wider public from doing business with those businesses/companies. As i understand, secondary boycotts enjoy little or no 1st Amendment protection. Does this make sense?
The precedent set if Ahmed is deported will be used in the future to Administratively try to silence dissenting views that the government does not want anyone to hear. Ahmed's speech and conduct to deny well qualified doctors and scientists is gisgraceful, but should be counterd by MORE SPEECH pointing to his flaws and inconsistencies. He can be the foil we need to show how antidemocratic and authoritarian are his views and means to try to enforce them.
That is always a possibility, however, my understanding is that this person actively violated US citizens' rights in the US. I do not see that as the same thing as expressing an opinion. As in, someone saying "I think someone should pull all your teeth" while quite vivid and nasty, is free speech according to our Bill of Rights, and it is not the same as someone actually taking a wrench to your teeth. He actually applied the wrench, as it were.