Some ex-world leaders write memoirs. Some paint. Some play a lot of golf. Still, others create organizations, foundations, institutes to push their agendas they were unable to satisfactorily fulfill while in office.

Tony Blair is of the latter. Mr. Blair’s Institute for Global Change is one example of a former leader of a powerful nation using his network and clout attained while in office to further agendas they could not while in office. One of Mr. Blair’s biggest burrs up his backside is religion. Oh, there are so many of them don’t ya know, and THOSE PESKY RELIGIONS are the reason we have so many of the worlds problems, if only we could have only one, THEN we could all live in harmony, in peace, and the world would be like a Coca-Cola TV commercial! Mr. Blair over the years has teamed up with worldly high profile, let us call them “celebrity pastors,” ( Tony Blair, evangelicals and the coming one world religion), as Mr. Blair is no dummy, to help him achieve his main goal of creating one world religion before he dies, believing if this is accomplished the world will live in complete peace, without hate, and so on as all the walking in darkness totally influenced by the whispering soft voice of the devil in their heads convince themselves is THEE ANSWER to most of the worlds problems. If in doubt, this is just one of the most recent examples. While after reading that article you might say, I don’t see it, I don’t see what you’re talking about here. Nothing seems sinister, nothing wrong with what they’re doing I would implore you to slow down, go back and reread the article. Hopefully, such is not the case and you saw in the initial reading what is at work here.

Yes, it’s subtle. Exactly like the serpent in the Garden of Eden.

Satan achieves his best work through subtlety not in bashing over the head. Satan does his best work when his whisperings and seductions in the ears and hearts of people are thought to be their own ideas, the best ideas they came up with, solutions to problems making everything better, easier, safer and so on. Also — they put a smile on faces as the egos of the individuals are ever so pleased with themselves thinking they are some great thinker when in truth they are merely enslaved to the voice of evil working against God, working against Jesus, working against the Living inerrant Word of God, working the rebellion, mayhem, and evil which is all the devil knows. Let’s mix things all up, cause great confusion and get these people believing they are gods, they came up with these ideas and they can change to world, create Paradise themselves (after they destroyed the One True Paradise for them created by the One True God, who they disobeyed and I convinced them to listen to me instead! Aha! Aren’t I just grand and wonderful in the rot and mayhem I have wrought and continue to reign down on all these slaves of mine!?)

I imagine the devil laughing, singing and saying to himself.

Tony Blair is just another one in chains walking in darkness for the devil.

Tony Blair is accomplishing more, much more worldwide than he ever did while Prime Minister of England.

Which leads us to the following, and remember — it’s all subtle pieces being laid in place to achieve a truly evil agenda, which is to have everything in place, all neatly arranged and in grand disorder imitating order, lawlessness imitating law for the emergence of the Antichrist and his false prophet.

And every jot and title of Bible prophecy to be finally fulfilled.

Will this happen soon? In our lifetimes? Perhaps. We do not know, no one knows the hour or the time save God Almighty. But let each of us be fully aware, as aware as possible. Let each of us put on, keep on never removing, never growing lax or weary, never allowing to be put into disarray or neglect the full armour of God.

Everything is being done all the time to bring all this about. The movements may appear subtle like the individual striking the triangle in a massive world orchestra, or the plucking of one string from the 6th violin player — but make no mistake — all the sounds, all the movements, all the orchestrations are being sounded and played without interruption in this never ending until the Lord sets His foot once again on the Mount of Olives spiritual war each is in and cannot escape no matter what they may believe, or no matter what they may attempt to escape.

Everyone is involved directly in the non-stop spiritual war taking place within and around every person everywhere.

 

Ken Pullen

ACP — A Crooked Path

Thursday, September 12th, 2019

 

U.K.: Tony Blair Think-Tank Proposes End to Free Speech

 

 

  • Disturbingly, the main concern of Blair’s think-tank appears to be the online verbal “hatred” displayed by citizens in response to terrorist attacks — not the actual physical expression of hatred shown in the mass murders of innocent people by terrorists. Terrorist attacks, it would appear, are now supposedly normal, unavoidable incidents that have become part and parcel of U.K. life.
  • Unlike proscribed groups that are banned for criminal actions such as violence or terrorism, the designation of “hate group” would mainly be prosecuting thought-crimes.
  • Democratic values, however, appear to be the think-tank’s least concern. The proposed law would make the British government the arbiter of accepted speech, especially political speech. Such an extraordinary and radically authoritarian move would render freedom of speech an illusion in the U.K.
  • The Home Office would be able to accuse any group it found politically inconvenient of “spreading intolerance” or “aligning with extremist ideologies” — and designate it a “hate group”.
A new law proposed by the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change would make the British government the arbiter of accepted speech, especially political speech. Such an extraordinary and radically authoritarian move would render freedom of speech an illusion in the UK. (Images’ source: iStock)

The Tony Blair Institute for Global Change has released a report, Designating Hate: New Policy Responses to Stop Hate Crime, which recommends radical initiatives to tackle “hate” groups, even if they have not committed any kind of violent activity.

The problem, as the think-tank defines it, is “the dangerous nature of hateful groups, including on the far right like Britain First and Generation Identity. But current laws are unable to stop groups that spread hate and division, but do not advocate violence”. The think-tank defines what it sees as one of the main problems with hate crime the following way:

“A steady growth in hate crime has been driven by surges around major events. Often this begins online. Around the 2017 terror attacks in the U.K., hate incidents online increased by almost 1,000 per cent, from 4,000 to over 37,500 daily. In the 48-hour period after an event, hate begins to flow offline”.

Specifically, the report mentioned as problematic the rise online in “hate incidents” after three Islamic terrorist attacks in the U.K. in 2017 — the Westminster car-ramming and stabbing attack in March by Khalid Masood, who murdered pedestrians and a police officer; the Manchester arena bombing in May, at the end of an Ariana Grande concert, in which Salman Abedi murdered 22 people — the youngest only 8 years old — and injured more than 200 people; and the London Bridge ramming attack in June, in which Rachid Redouane, Khuram Butt and Youssef Zaghba drove a van into pedestrians on London Bridge and then proceeded to stab people in nearby Borough Market. Eight people were murdered in that attack.

Disturbingly, the main concern of Blair’s think-tank appears to be the online verbal “hatred” displayed by citizens in response to terrorist attacks – not the actual physical expression of hatred shown in the mass murders of innocent people by terrorists. Terrorist attacks, it would appear, are now supposedly normal, unavoidable incidents that have become part and parcel of U.K. life.

The report claims:

“Divisive groups – especially increasingly mainstreamed far-right groups – spread hatred with relative impunity because responses to nonviolent extremism remain uncoordinated; hate incidents spike around major events, leaving communities exposed; and perpetrators of religious hate are rarely prosecuted due to gaps in legislation”.

The problem, according to the report, is that “current laws are unable to stop groups that spread hate and division, but do not advocate violence”.

One of the think-tank’s suggested solutions to this problem is to:

“Create a new law to designate ‘hate groups’. This new tier of hate group designation would be the first of its kind in Europe and would help tackle nonviolent extremist groups that demonise specific groups on the basis of their race, religious, gender, nationality or sexuality … Powers to designate would, like proscription powers, fall under the Home Office’s remit and require ministerial sign off”.

The report defines a hate group as:

“Spreading intolerance and antipathy towards people of a different race, religion, gender or nationality, specifically because of these characteristics; Aligning with extremist ideologies… though not inciting violence; Committing hate crimes or inspiring others to do so via hate speech; Disproportionately blaming specific groups (based on religion, race, gender or nationality) for broader societal issues”.

It would be up to the government to define what is understood by “spreading intolerance”, or “blaming specific groups for broader societal issues”.

Being designated a “hate group”, it is underlined in the report, “would sit alongside proscription but not be linked to violence or terrorism, while related offences would be civil not criminal”.

Unlike proscribed groups that are banned for criminal actions, such as violence or terrorism, the designation of “hate group” would mainly be prosecuting thought-crimes.

The groups that Blair’s think-tank mentions as main examples of those to be designated hate groups are Britain First and Generation Identity. Both are political; Britain First is also an aspiring political party with parliamentary ambitions. If the report’s suggestions were to be adopted into law, these movements, if designated as “hate groups” would not be allowed “to use media outlets or speak at universities”. They would also not be allowed “to engage, work with or for public institutions”.

However, the report tries to assure us, “hate designation would be time-limited and automatically reviewed, conditioned on visible reform of the group”.

Although the report would still allow designated “hate groups” to “meet, support or campaign”, such a law would mean that the political speech of designated groups would be rendered null and void. The European Convention on Human Rights and the jurisprudence on the convention from the European Court of Human Rights puts a special premium on political speech, which enjoys particular protection: it is so fundamental to the basic workings of a democratic society. In its case law, the European Court of Human Rights has stated[1] that the convention

“…protects not only the information or ideas that are regarded as inoffensive but also those that offend, shock or disturb; such are the demands of that pluralism, tolerance and broad-mindedness without which there is no democratic society. Opinions expressed in strong or exaggerated language are also protected”.

Even more important is that, according to the European Court of Human Rights’ case law,

“…the extent of protection depends on the context and the aim of the criticism. In matters of public controversy or public interest, during political debate, in electoral campaigns… strong words and harsh criticism may be expected and will be tolerated to a greater degree by the Court”. [emphasis added]

The European Court of Human Rights may therefore find aspects of the proposed law problematic precisely because of concerns with free speech and basic democratic values.

Democratic values, however, appear to be the think-tank’s least concern. The proposed law would make the British government the arbiter of accepted speech, especially political speech. Such an extraordinary and radically authoritarian move would render freedom of speech an illusion in the U.K. The Home Office would be able to accuse any group it found politically inconvenient of “spreading intolerance” or “aligning with extremist ideologies” — and designate it a “hate group”.

It would make the old Soviets proud.

Judith Bergman, a columnist, lawyer and political analyst, is a Distinguished Senior Fellow at Gatestone Institute.


[1] Monica Macovei: A guide to the implementation of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, p 16, (Human rights handbooks, No. 2, 2004).

 

Related Topics:  Threats to Free Speech, United Kingdom

Recent Articles by Judith Bergman