By Anne Marie Waters

Welcome to the Ministry of Love. The Ministry of Love is so loving that it has made it its mission to protect us from “harmful” online content. It is a mere coincidence (a striking one) that the “harmful” content it has in mind, also happens to be “harmful” to the government; specifically its globalist aims to dissolve Western countries (and only Western countries) in to an open border utopia.

Anyone nursing the illusion that the UK is a free country is about to be sorely disappointed. The government has announced that it is to introduce “world first online safety laws”. [1] It has framed this as an attempt to protect children from online grooming, which few would object to, but if you believe this is what it will really be used for, you’re not paying attention to the political oppression that is taking place in Britain 2019.

Globalism and open borders are not to be opposed. If you do not go along with the notion that European and other Western states should be more “diverse”, that white people are racists and colonialists who deserve everything that’s coming to them, and that Islam is a religion of peace, you are filled with “harmful content”. The state will prevent you from propagating that harmful content by cutting off your right to free expression, and with it, your right to oppose government policy. We have therefore entered the post-democracy age.

The government announced that the measures are intended to tackle “inciting violence and violent content, encouraging suicide, disinformation, cyberbullying and children accessing inappropriate material.” A key word here is “disinformation”. This could (and will) be used to shut down anything inconvenient to the government. That’s what it’s for. If the government was serious about tackling harm to children, it would demand that police protect children from the rape gangs that still run amok with impunity, or the children having their genitals cut off, or being forced to marry, but instead it has decided to focus on the internet, with the added bonus that here, it can cut off political opposition at the same time.

The plans were posted on the government website on April 8th. On April 18th, Facebook banned Britain First and the English Defence League (among others it considers the “far right”). This is rather telling, is it not?

I know little of these groups, and therefore don’t defend them, but I do know what it means to be labelled “far right” by the mainstream press and to have no right of reply or debate in which to clarify my views or defend my position.

The language used by Facebook to justify its ban is pure totalitarianism. It stated: “Individuals and organisations who spread hate, or attack or call for the exclusion of others on the basis of who they are, have no place on Facebook”. This will be used to shut down opposition to Islam, mass immigration, or transgenderism. It will also bar anyone who promotes nationalism or controlled/limited immigration. That is already clear, and there is no doubt more to come. By contrast, sharia-advocates and anti-Semites will continue to enjoy free reign.

Labour heavyweight Yvette Cooper, the “feminist” who called for Tommy Robinson to be removed from YouTube but said nothing about the promotion of FGM on Twitter, was delighted with the news and called it “long overdue” [2]. Instantly revealing her priorities, Cooper said that social media firms had “particularly failed on far-right extremism”. [3]

So widespread is the censorship that even people who mention the above groups, or indeed Tommy Robinson, will also be barred. The UK has transformed into the Soviet Union and few seem to recognise it, and if you do, you’re likely to be banned from social media.

The tech giants are exerting control over public discourse and are doing so in conjunction with government. We all remember the notorious meeting between German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Facebook chief Mark Zuckerberg. Merkel questioned Zuckerberg “Are you working on this?”. She was referring to the removal of posts and accounts on Facebook that are critical of her insane policy to open the borders of Europe to millions of third world migrants.[4] She was, in other words, asking a social media giant to punish criticism of government policy.

Social media giants are often defended from regulation by reference to their independence as private companies, and therefore they should have the liberty to subject users to any rules they wish. But this is not a reflection of the power they hold. When big business, including but not limited to tech giants, and government can conspire to severely curtail public political discussion and to halt criticism of government policy in the public domain, it ceases to be a private matter.

When media giants crush political discussion and are openly biased in favour of one political position, civil rights become an issue because democracy itself is being tampered with by people with no accountability to the public.

It’s time for greater focus on fairness in the media. Those defamed must have the ability to set the record straight, and those who oppose government policy must never be punished for it.

In Europe, it is no longer a question of whether we will lose democracy, but of how to get it back. This collusion between media and government must be challenged with all of our energy if we are to stand a chance.