The UK Edges Closer to Totalitarianism


In what will no doubt go down as a landmark judgement by the UK courts, YouTuber and self-confessed “shit-poster” Count Dankula aka Mark Meechan was yesterday found guilty of the crime of causing “gross offense”, convicted in the Airdrie Sheriff’s Court in Scotland … the court deeming it a hate crime for posting a YouTube video of his girlfriend’s pug, Buddha, being taught Nazi salutes.

For anyone who’s ever watched the clip, it’s hard to imagine exactly what offense was caused, as anyone with a reasonably developed sense of emotional intelligence, or indeed anyone who has ever been in a relationship with an actual human female, could attest to Dankula’s intention in the video – it was a joke aimed at annoying his girlfriend. That’s it.

As you’d expect, Dankula’s defence argued simply that, free speech aside, the video was aimed at humour, the dog wasn’t actually a Nazi [Bad Dog], Dankula wasn’t himself actually promoting Nazism (the video takes the piss out of Nazis), and let’s be honest, no sensible person would view any part of the video as actual incitement to “gas the Jews”.

Yet somehow the court found otherwise, with the judge determining that he knew Meechan’s mind better than Meechan himself, declaring in his divine wisdom that the video had absolutely been an attempt to stir up anti-Semitic feeling. Key witness in the case, Ephraim Borowski of the Scottish Jewish council, went one further in his statement to the court, noting, “…I actually feel sorry for the dog.” No, that is not a joke.

One of the more troubling aspects of this case is that, according to the defence, no one actually complained, however upon becoming aware of the clip, the local police had taken the opportunity to push this case as a giant virtue signalling opportunity to show just how seriously they were taking their role of promoting tolerance and multiculturalism. Police Scotland was the offended party!

We all need to be extremely interested in this case, aside from regarding it as an indictment on British values or the fall of that country’s justice system into the realms of social justice madness. The verdict against Meechan is a warning; in a country in which it has now become completely taboo to speak up against controversial subjects like immigration, Islam or refugees, where public personalities and individuals alike are harassed online for daring to hold or express an opinion which doesn’t align with that ordained by the Left as tolerable, the justice system has made it clear that it will treat as “offensive” any speech that it does not agree with, and will use the law to harass and silence.

I hope that the past few weeks has opened the eyes of all reasonable people to the realities in Britain, whether it be the detention of Lauren Southern, the harassment of Tommy Robinson or any vaguely conservative critic of Islam and multiculturalism like Pegida in Germany; the Left in Britain controls speech, controls ideas, and now even entry into the country. Through the narrative created by its media mouthpieces like The Guardian or hard left groups such as Antifa or Hope Not Hate, the left paints anyone faintly critical of Islam or open borders as far-right or fascist, not suitable for the public good, and hence not free to speak.

Yet Britain is also a country where the leader of the opposition, Jeremy Corbyn, condones genuine anti-Semitic views without fear of censure, or where the Mayor of London Sadiq Khan is plastered all over the media talking about “hate speech” aimed at Muslims while a Google search reveals he has been dead silent on the victims of Muslim rape squads in Telford … something many Britons may find grossly offensive. [Interestingly, Mayor Khan did this week find time to unveil a plaque for the victim of the Finsbury truck attack, but I can’t help wonder why he hasn’t yet unveiled one for the victims of the London Bridge attacks.]

I also found it grossly offensive when Muslim Labour MP Naz Shah tweeted last year that victims of the Rotherham rape gangs should “shut their mouths for the good of diversity” in response to a post from a parody account of noted Lefty Owen Jones – but I don’t recall Shah being hounded out of office for misspeaking, nor has anyone much complained that Shah herself has been caught up in Corbyn’s anti-Semitism debacle. No, she has been lionised in the media for championing the confected “punish-a-Muslim” controversy. One rule for some, crushing censorship and policing of hate speech for the rest.

We have a problem, a big problem.

For anyone who believes this to be a British problem, you are wrong.

For anyone who thinks this is just a beat up of an idiotic “shit-poster” who should have known better, you are wrong.

For anyone who thinks Meecham’s charges have any merit whatsoever, you are wrong.

For anyone who thinks that Britons should accept the decision of a Scottish court who “know better than we do”, you are wrong.

For anyone who believes I am massively overstating the problem, and drawing parallels between issues which are unrelated in order to spread “fake news”, you are wrong.

For anyone who believes that the media is fair and impartial, you are wrong.

For anyone championing the clampdown of so-called hate speech, or cheering on the de-platforming of speakers or the shutting down of free speech events, you are wrong.

For anyone who thinks the Left is only interested in promoting diversity and inclusivity, and combating “hate”, you are wrong.

And for anyone who understands that this case has everything to with the Most Feminist Religion and a new regime of blasphemy courts in the UK, well done.

If Mark Meecham can be charged and convicted for being grossly offensive to Jews on the basis of an idiotic YouTube clip involving his pug, then anyone can be charged with a similar crime if the police determine that the offender has insulted the Most Feminist Religion. In a country with a legal system that allowed the cover ups of Telford and Rotherham, or a home office that allows jihadists to return unhindered into the country, or a government that fails to provide a reasonable duty of care to its citizens by protecting their basic freedoms, there is only one inevitable outcome:

The system is lurching dangerously close to a totalitarian state and civil unrest.