SOS – EDO Threat- Cameron’s Camouflaged Crack-Down?

A few months ago, I got a circular email, talking bout the Cameron Government’s EDOs, Extremism Disruption orders, and the senders reckoned they were a bad thing.

I get tons of email every day and put that one to one side, but after reading the regular bulletins issued by  ‘Fast Forward,’ an off-shoot of Conservative Way Forward, it seemed timely to dig out that warning note on EDOs, and think again.

CWF is a Tory Party pressure group and I’m not in any way involved with it.

This creep is a ‘conservative?’ Read all about Mark Spencer’s witch-hunt aspirations here –


But today’s billet-doux from ‘Fast Forward’ – a new initiative from the team behind Conservative Way Forward, to bring you the briefest, punchiest, most campaign-focused, action-packed daily news email in Westminster  –     included an article by  some Tory MP called Mark Spencer, writing about the virtues of free speech. .

Spencer thinks it’s a dashed fine thing, but then asks breathlessly –

But does that mean that we can let people incite violent and even murderous behaviour?


Incitement to kill or main, as expressed by ignorant savages, like those in the photo above, hardly qualifies as free speech, true. But Master Mark then takes a huge leap of illogic. 

I don’t believe that we should give racists, religious fundamentalists and homophobes the freedom to spread their message of hate through what are often vulnerable communities.

Racists? People have been calling other people ‘racist’ on all sorts of pretexts. It is a word made almost meaningless. if you object to multicult, want crimmigrants deported, tell Irish jokes…all ‘racist’ activity. Such speech is to be curbed?

Religious fundamentalists? Harmless folk who think the Earth was literally created in a week?  It says so in The Bible. That Christ rose from the dead? That’s a fundamental tenet of Christian Britain’s Established churches, in England and Scotland. Spencer’s vagueness is deliberate, but handy, because the term can mean anything.


  • =========================
  • And homophobes!
  • If you believe homosexuality is a sin, or aberrant, or that those afflicted by it deserve help in getting it sorted…and if you speak your beliefs? If like milllions, you think ‘gay’ marriage is an absurdity, and ‘gay’ adoption an outrage…does Spencer say you may not voice your thoughts? 

Racists? Religious fundamentalists? Homophobes?

Whatever those terms mean, they are not and should certainly not be, reasons for curbing free speech. Nor for introducing EDOs.

The only issue that makes EDOs necessary is the issue of allegiance. No sane person gives a monkey’s if people worship God, or gods, different from their own.


Poppies burned


But if they call themselves ‘British,’ yet put sectarian, or any, ideology, above duty to Queen and Country, then they should not be silenced but removed. Let them depart for wherever their loyalty takes them. 


  • 3557c-hizbut-tahrir2
  • ================
  • But Cameron’s not bothered about that – if disloyalty mattered to him, he’d not have broken his word about banning Hizbut Tahrir, nor would he have backed off from outlawing the racist (yes, recall how ‘Jews are descendants of pigs and apes’) Muslim Brotherhood.

Instead, with his Conservative Cabinet and presumably most of his ‘Conservative’ MPs, he’s out to stomp those whom Spencer enumerates – dissenters from the cultural marxist agenda.

And that’s what should worry Brits.  

It does seem to have stirred doubts in some hearts. CfM tells us that senior Conservative David Davis MP described the measures as “quite incredible powers to limit democratic rights…”, Dominic Raab MP has said: “Those engaged in passionate debates”, in which he includes those “objecting to gay marriage”, could find themselves “slapped down.”

So not all Conservatives have given up on freedom.  But CWF?


CWF was founded a few years ago, ostensibly as a ‘rightwing’ pressure group, and had some fairly decent Tories on board when it started. I don’t know if they have moved on, but we have to judge them on what they publish.

CWF nowadays appears to be talking the gaystapo talk, however ‘conservative’ it likes to present itself.

Another item in that same Fast Forward issue dealt with Australian parliamentary discussions about the re-definition of marriage.

It did not use that term, nor even ‘same-sex marriage,’ but instead described that issue as ‘Marriage Equality,’ without inverted commas to identify the term as ‘gay-speak.’

Nobody ‘rightwing,’ or even vaguely conservative, regards what’s being done to marriage as ‘Marriage Equality, ‘ – marriage has always been open to any man to marry any woman, and vice versa, of their choice, except for obvious age and incest safeguards.

So how come Fast Forward uses this ‘gay-prattle’ vocabulary?