Are vicious totalitarian mush-heads trying to eliminate all speech — and all choices — in the West?

04 September 2023

Should we light our panties on fire?

Below are three reports, indicative of the tyrannical thinking that has taken over the Collective West.

First report — Finland

From the Daily Sceptic, quoting Tim Stanley's Telegraph article:

Tim Stanley in the Telegraph highlights the chilling case of Finnish MP and former Interior Minister . . . Päivi Räsänen, whose prosecution by the state for her traditional Christian views on sex is a “canary in a coal mine” showing free speech in the West is dead – sacrificed in favour of banning ‘insults’.

Päivi Räsänen is a doctor, longstanding MP and former interior minister. In 2019, police opened an investigation into her for “incitement against a minority”. The accusation is based upon a tweet in which she asked why the Lutheran Church sponsored a Pride event; a debate in which she said God intends us to be straight; and a booklet she authored nearly 20 years ago that argued homosexuality is a developmental disorder.

The Finnish police concluded that no crime had been committed, but the prosecutor-general decided to charge her anyway.

In 2022, Räsänen went to court: three judges, no jury, no witnesses and not even a victim to say they took offence. The judges decided in Räsänen’s favour; the prosecutor, who won’t take no for an answer, simply brought the case back via appeal.

The second trial wrapped up last week, and if Räsänen is found guilty, she could face jail.

There’s no escaping the inquisition. Räsänen might evoke the defence that she hates sin but loves the sinner, but the prosecution stated that this isn’t good enough in a modern society. Calling actions a sin insults the people who do them, and given that one’s identity can be defined by acts, it amounts to an attack on their very being.

One might reply that many Christians feel a calling to evangelise, so stopping them from performing that particular action threatens their identity, too.

At one point the Finnish prosecution reportedly said of one of Räsänen’s arguments: “The point isn’t whether it is true or not but that it is insulting.”

© 2023 Will Jones, It’s Time the West Admitted it has Sacrificed Free Speech in Favour of Banning ‘Insults’, Daily Sceptic (04 September 2023) — quoting Tim Stanley, It’s time the West admitted free speech is dead, Telegraph (04 September 2023)

God forbid that we insult anyone. Even when we do so in view of the fact that — easily arguably — the entirety of the totalitarian-seeking Collective West is comprised of abysmally dumbass mental midgets and wimp-souled autocrats.

Second report — Britain

Law professor Jonathan Turley pointed to the striking British re-introduction of the formerly Nazi-wielded, life-ending axe:

British doctors are seeking to take a 19-year-old critically ill female patient off the intensive care despite her objections and those of her parents.

[T]he woman known only as “ST” is conscious and communicative. Yet, the doctors argue that she is not being realistic about her chances of survival from a rare disorder.

Now a British court has agreed and ordered that she can be placed on end-of-life care against her will.

She wants to be allowed to travel to Canada for an experimental treatment but the doctors oppose the plan and say that she is not accepting the realities of her terminal illness.

They say that she is “actively dying” without any hope of resuming life outside of intensive care.

Her deeply religious family have spent their entire life savings on her care and has complained that a “transparency order” requested by the hospital barred their ability to give details on the case to help raise public funds.

The court found that ST “is able to communicate reasonably well with her doctors with assistance from her mother and, on occasion, speech therapists.”

Moreover, two psychiatrists testified that she is mentally competent to make decisions about her own care.

Nevertheless, the judge found that she is mentally incapable of making decisions for herself because “she does not believe the information she has been given by her doctors.”

The court appears to reject her ability to make this decision because she is making the wrong decision . . . .

Her “best interest,” according to the doctors, is to die.

In other words, we should immediately kill evidently dying people, who do not agree with our interpretation of alleged facts, regarding the many-many possibilities that the Medical Establishment is wrong.

Think back to the COVID fiasco.

Was the Medical Establishment scientifically, medically and societally correct in virtually any of its diktats?

What is different now, I wonder.

Third report — Texas, USA

This is the tyrannically grandest of the three reports.

Essentially amounting to — let's have Texas authorize private morality litigators to bankrupt you, if you aid someone else in her attempt to obtain an abortion — while traveling on Texas highways or through Texas air space:

Not content to simply ban abortion within state borders, Texas conservatives are now targeting people’s ability to travel out of state to get the procedure.

Anti-abortion activists are working to pass laws that would make it illegal to drive someone on roads within the city or town if the end destination is an abortion clinic, according to chilling new reporting by the Washington Post.

Mary Ziegler, a law professor at the University of California at Davis, told the Washington Post that the laws appear to violate the Constitution’s right to travel, they’re very difficult to challenge in court . . . [because] there’s no state official to sue.

“The purpose of these laws is not to meaningfully enforce them,” said Neesha Davé, the [Lilith] fund’s executive director.

“It’s the fear that’s the point. It’s the confusion that’s the point.”

[For example] When S.B. 8 took effect, Texas clinics stopped providing abortions because lawsuits could bankrupt them.

So, be careful whom you help.

The people you assist may be thinking purportedly bad things that some group of self-righteous, un-nuanced dopes blanketly objects to.

The moral? — To protect Liberty, should all these tyrant-wannabes be locked up?

Or (arguably more effectively) Thomas Jefferson-blooded?

Would either retribution 'insult' them, according to the Collective West's new standard for enforcing sheep-noggined conduct?

Wouldn't we, instead, be making glorious martyrs out of these autocrat wannabes in their own feeble, afraid-of-freedom minds?

Such a conundrum.

Ponder it, while I metaphorically prepare Liberty's Jefferson musket.

PeteFree.com

Are vicious totalitarian mush-heads trying to eliminate all speech — and all choices — in the West?