Free Speech: Political Correctness Just as Dangerous as Religious Fundamentalism

LONDON - England - Political correctness is equal to Islamic fundamentalism in its prohibitive behaviour towards free speech.

The world at the moment is not a very humorous place, and there are many variables to illustrate this point.

The Daily Squib is a staunch believer in freedom of speech, it does not have nationality, religion or creed, it is merely a mirror of everything, timeless with no allegiance to any political party, faction or conglomerate, however we are knowledgeable and not ignorant to the dangers of attacking in writing the prophet of Islam. Muslims are still 400 years behind in religious evolution and were never party to a Rennaissence or Enlightenement like the European Christians. It is this profound ignorance that got members of Charlie Hebdo murdered as they should have had some knowledge of the situation, especially with their depiction of the Islamic prophet.

It is not just Islamic fanaticism that has constrained the media and Internet but it also has been stifled by the crippling farce of political correctness, a leftist vestige of communist soviet speech and control technique.

After the Charlie Hebdo shooting incident, it was interesting to see president Obama saying that free speech should be preserved, a rather hypocritical statement considering his record of skewing news in his favour and of cutting off news broadcasters from their viewers if they do not tow the line.

In the face of religious fundamentalism, political correctness is just as insidious yet without the bullets and knives.

Feminism also falls under the soviet technique of political correctness and is vastly damaging to free speech.

True freedom of speech should involve all points of view, whether pleasing to the controlling faction or not. If we want the whole picture, we must be able to take all flavours, and if you do not like one particular point, why not exercise your free will and gain your sustenance from elsewhere instead of going around and reporting something that offends you, just walk away, respect free speech.

Does lack of privacy enter the equation of free speech? Yes it does, and under the Obama regime, the NSA in America, and GCHQ in Britain have targeted journalists and news organisations, thus limiting what these organisations can say or do. This hinders free speech. It is all well and good citing the threat of terrorism for an increase in spying but that should not involve blanket spying on everyone, but targeted action against terrorism instead. Because of a few acts from a few people, why is it that the whole populace has to lose all their privacy and thus all be treated as terrorists? This is counter to everything the West stands for, and only reinforces those who seek to harm those who deem themselves free.

The notion of freedom itself is multi faceted, and we in the West claim to be free but if you look closely, you will realise the opposite is true. There is very limited freedom in the West today, one only has to look at the recent Scottish referendum to see how propaganda techniques were utilised to force a No vote. The same is sure to happen for the supposed EU referendum, which will probably never materialise anyway.

Instead of arresting trolls on Twitter or Facebook because some ninny got offended by a few words, would it not be better to get the police to arrest real criminals and terrorists?

Lest we forget the outspoken obvious joker, Katie Hopkins who is a professional agitator, she was recently nearly arrested for saying something about Jocks in Scotland. An utterly ridiculous incident where the PC brigade started a campaign to have her account deleted and reported her to the police. The PC thought police have nothing better to do obviously, especially whilst the real dangers are all around and yet they cannot see them instead choosing to twat about on Twitter.

Political correctness is now an agenda which is all prevailing, it curtails free speech, uses a mob mentality to police its agenda, and is equal in its prohibitive nature as Islamic fundamentalism.