What is freedom of speech? What is a ‘malicious communication’? This is the fundamental issue now facing everyone in Britain as the ‘hate speech’ tyranny escalates to wipe out freedom of expression or to shape it entirely in line with neo-Marxist ideology. Over 50,000 people have been arrested since Brexit and most of them have committed no criminal offence of any description.
The Malicious Communications Act 1998 currently is the most abused legislation in Britain and is not being used to protect people from malicious threats. The MCA is being used by public servants to silence criticism of their misconduct or incompetence by allowing them to claim that their critics are sending them ‘malicious communications’ or subjecting them to imaginary ‘harassment’.
For example, if you send a public servant an email expressing your distaste with their incompetent or corrupt actions, that is your right to fair comment and freedom of expression in the private and public domain. No one should have the right to silence fair comment by claiming they are being sent ‘malicious communications’ when someone criticises them in private or in public.
If you send a Member of Parliament a tweet stating ‘I don’t like the way to pander to radical Islam and put British people in danger’, that is your right to free speech, it is not ‘hate speech’, it is not a malicious communication and it certainly is not ‘harassment’.
The law needs to be amended to make these issues perfectly clear. I will use the current bugbear of Islam because so many people are addressing this issue on social media. If you state that Mohamed’s Halal shop should be closed down because you don’t agree with ritual slaughter, that is your right to fair comment, it is not ‘hate speech’ and it is not a malicious communication. If you say Mohamed’s Halal shop should be firebombed because you hate Islam, then that is a malicious communication, it is also hate speech and you should be arrested for saying it.
Another example is this: If someone treats you very badly and causes you serious distress, particularly for which you need medical treatment as a result, then you have a right in the private and public domain to tell that person exactly what you think of such appalling actions, it is not ‘harassment’ or malicious communications’. But if you send that person a death threat, saying you are going to kill them because of what they did to you, then that is a malicious communication and probably harassment as well.
The Malicious Communications Act should be amended by Parliament to cover specific issues of threatening behaviour alone and there must be a clear threat in a communication to warrant police involvement.
Likewise the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 needs to be overhauled completely and rewritten to define exactly what constitutes harassment. If for example you write an article or series of articles expressing your opinions about certain people or you expose their misconduct supported by hard evidence, this is not ‘harassment’ it is freedom of expression and fair comment, it is investigate journalism.
But if you publish articles making threats against the person, then this is malicious communications and probably a course of conduct that constitutes harassment. If you can prove that you have exposed the truth and have evidence to support what you’ve published, the police and CPS should never be involved in such matters.
Online harassment is a minefield at this time and is widely abused by public servants and other incurable liars to fabricate fairy tales about being harassed or sent malicious communications. The test has to be a specific threat to the person, not comments they find upsetting because someone has expressed an opinion they dislike.
I you threaten someone repeatedly after that person has asked you to stop, then that is harassment and/or malicious communications. But if you have exposed what you believe is misconduct of any description, that is not harassment or malicious communications and you have a right to criticise anyone in the private and public domain. The only acid test to determine this issue and restore freedom of speech is the issue of threat level in the context of malice. What is ‘malice’ in this context?
A communication is only malicious if it contains a threat of any description, calling someone a ‘cunt’ for example is not a threat, it is uncouth language but it is not a malicious communication and it is not harassment.
The ideal situation would be to repeal the MCA and PHA legislation and enact new legislation under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 and by amending this legislation to modern issues of online harassment and malicious communications, the issue of specific threat to the person is dealt with completely and could warrant a maximum five year jail sentence.
Expressing opinions that offend the neo-Marxist cabal trained and funded by the EU is not ‘harassment’ or malicious communications. For example, I believe the Freemasons and Common Purpose should become proscribed organisations because the former is instrumental in organised crime – the Establishment – and the latter is a brainwashing unit funded by the EU. It is my right to hold such opinions and to express them in the public and private domain without fear of arrest or persecution by the State or more to the point, freedom to do so without being persecuted by the corrupt Masonic Order and neo-Marxist Common Purpose.
However, it would not be acceptable for me to say that Freemasons or Common Purpose crackpots should be firebombed or killed, that is illegal, it is a malicious communication and I do not express such views. But it is my right to say that they should be banned and to expound the reasons why I believe this is the case.
Take UKIP for example, an organisation infected by Freemasonry at every level and which has corrupted and destroyed the very moral fabric of that party. I have a right to say they should be expelled from UKIP and their organisation, an organised criminal gang into every form of perversion known to mankind, should be banned in the public interest. In a so-called democracy, why should we tolerate sinister secret societies that exist for their benefit? It is my opinion that they should be banned and I have a right to express that view based on extensive experience of dealing with these perverted criminals.
As a result, after the General Election, StrongerOUT will re-task its public campaign to focus on the enactment of a new Bill of Rights 2019 and the repeal or amendment of legislation that targets freedom of expression in any capacity. We will concentrate on the foregoing areas of law and a new Bill of Rights must contain an amendment guaranteeing everyone in Britain the right to free speech and #LibertyByLaw.
We will target Members of Parliament and compel them to reform these instruments of tyranny. In particular, injunctions or restraining orders should never be used to stop people from expressing views or publishing material that certain people don’t like or find upsetting. A restraining order should only be granted where someone is being physically harassed. Likewise an injunction should only be used to stop someone published material covered by the Official Secrets Act 1989.
The Gagging Order culture is going to be dismantled completely and replaced with new legislation that strikes the proper balance between freedom of speech and public protection.
If you feel strongly about any of the issues covered in this article, please write to your MP to demand legal reform by using www.theyworkforyou.com