The New American Could you imagine getting 15 years in prison for relating true but politically incorrect ideas online? This could happen if a British think tank and government agency have their way.
Among the groups the U.K. government identifies as “terroristic” are certain Islamist organizations and two labeled neo-Nazi, and sharing material online from such entities is punishable by up to 15 years in prison. Yet what some call “hateful propaganda from other groups” is “met with far lower sentences,” the Independent writes.
In fact, a report by the neoconservative think tank the Henry Jackson Society (HJS) — compiled with the apparent blessing of the Commission for Countering Extremism, a government body — complains that Internet postings by non-prohibited groups may not be “properly” censored by social media.
“Nikita Malik, director of the think tank’s Centre on Radicalisation and Terrorism, said some companies rely on government lists of banned organisations when deciding what to remove,” the Independent relates.
Malik’s complaint is, apparently, that punishing (persecuting?) “right-wing” groups based only on hate-speech law isn’t enough — she wants them silenced via terrorism charges, which bring more severe sentences.
As for now, the sharing of non-terror-related, allegedly hateful online content can only be punished using laws against “malicious communications, hate crimes and causing ‘gross offence,’” the Independent also informs. Britain’s Terrorism Acts cannot be brought to bear.
This displeases the HJS. Its report claims that “Islamists” convicted of online offenses receive prison sentences three times longer than “far-right” groups do. But it draws a false equivalence, as it exploits a “far-right” bogeyman myth.
As Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller write at the online PJ Media, the HJS “continues the left’s practice of equating words with deeds [e.g., jihadist violence], while discounting actual violence from hard-left groups such as Antifa. In reality, whatever ‘real and significant harm’ results from ‘offending’ online, none of it could possibly be as ‘real and significant’ as actual wounds inflicted by genuine thugs, and the preponderance of those in the political realm are on the left these days.”
Spencer and Geller themselves are victims of this leftist double standard as the HJS actually cites them as “extremists … who had been prevented from entering Britain because of extremist concerns but are allowed to remain on Facebook, Twitter and YouTube.”
That the powers-that-be want Spencer and Geller silenced speaks volumes. Agree with them or not, their mission is merely to warn of the Muslim jihadist threat; they’re passionate and politically incorrect, but never advocate violence or hatred toward any group.
So if they should be silenced, who’s next? Note that radio host Michael Savage has also been banned from Britain (for political reasons). Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a black woman and practicing Muslim for half her life, recently appeared in a PragerU video stating that Islam is not a “religion of peace.” Current practicing Muslim Dr. Mudar Zahran stated in a 2015 interview that the Occident was facing the “soft Islamic conquest of the West” and that Muslim “refugees” should be kept out of Europe.
Also, bearing in mind that governments and corporations often use “hate lists” compiled by groups such as the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) when deciding whom to ban, know that the SPLC once put me on its HateWatch page for using in print the term “lynch” (yes, seriously). And PragerU itself has been censored by YouTube.
In other words, the “hateful” will ultimately include everyone the Left hates.