Imprisonment For Political Speech OK?
Print Friendly and PDF
From Nicholas Stix's blog, a letter from one of the Heretical 2, who are seeking asylum in the US against political persecution in Britain. The point is that Britain's anti-free-speech laws involve violation of basic human rights of the kind that are still protected by the First Amendment. One of the victims writes of his US Immigration Court experience:
The judge [immigration judge Rose Peters] doesn't ignore the possibility of imprisonment for political speech: she supports it. To quote from her ruling:

According to evidence presented before the Court, Applicants have been arrested, tried, and convicted under legitimate laws of the United Kingdom. Generally, legitimate prosecution cannot be considered persecution for asylum purposes...In the present case, Applicants were tried and convicted by a highly developed and sophisticated legal system. As such, it cannot be said that their conviction was arbitrary or lacking due process of law. (pp. 7-8) [Emphasis added.]

Michelle Myers, the DA [federal prosecutor], made no attempt to rebut any of our claims about persecution: her entire reply consisted of a report on the European Community's efforts to crush free speech. She and the judge were obviously fully in support. I repeatedly made the point in my testimony that one of the chief reasons for our flight was to warn Americans of the implications of our conviction for speech on an American-based site: Namely, that American citizens too were liable to arrest and imprisonment if they entered British/European jurisdiction. The judge and DA are obviously quite happy for that to take place. Free speech and free enquiry are white male values and both are marked for destruction under the present Marxist diversitoids. That's not to say all white males support free speech or all non-whites and non-males oppose it, simply that it will not survive if white males lose power.

Print Friendly and PDF