The
UK is currently in the midst of a crisis involving illegal aliens attempting to
enter the UK by traveling across the English Channel on small boats
More
than 45,000 illegal aliens entered the UK last year, up from about 300 in 2018.
The UK is currently spending £ 7 million on hotels to accommodate illegal
aliens.
Unlike
the Biden administration which has purposefully left US borders unguarded to
allow an uncontrolled influx of illegal aliens, the UK government is
making attempts to curb this problem.
The
UK home secretary proposed legislation that enables instant deportation of
those entering the UK illegally. This could be an effective way to deter the
influx.
https://twitter.com/ukhomeoffice/status/1633022905628884992
As
expected the open border fanatics in the UK were outraged by this idea
and branded it racist and xenophobic.
As
always none of these open borders advocates didn't volunteer to accommodate
these illegal aliens in their homes or sponsor any hotel rooms for the
aliens.
It
is just plain and empty virtue signaling.
Among
those outraged was BBC Sports broadcaster and former footballer Gary Lineker.
Lineker
took to Twitter to brand the proposed legislation as ‘beyond awful.’
https://twitter.com/GaryLineker/status/1633094764865126400
Linekar
added that the "immeasurably cruel policy" was directed at "the
most vulnerable people in a language that is not dissimilar to that used by
Germany in the 30s".
https://twitter.com/GaryLineker/status/1633111662352891908
The
comparison is preposterous.
In
Germany during the 1930s, the Jewish people who suffered systemic targeting
were citizens and not illegal migrants. They were persecuted and suffered
genocide for their religious beliefs.
The
scale of persecution and targeting was such that led to the Holocaust where 6
million Jews perished and millions more were displaced. This is one of the
darkest chapters in human history. Casual comparisons to any contemporary
occurrences are particularly insensitive to the millions of victims and
trivialize its graveness.
A
country is a finite entity with borders and citizens, aspiring visitors must
subject themselves to vetting before permission for entry is granted. Law
enforcement is an important function of any government. The illegal aliens
arriving in the UK will not be punished for their race or religion but for
violating immigration laws.
Now
for the BBC Lineker is a freelance broadcaster.
The
BBC has guidelines that are known as impartiality
rules that don't permit any partisan expression.
The
guidelines apply not only to ideas expressed on the BBC but also to social
media posts of BBC accounts.
Lineker signed
a five-year deal with the BBC in 2020, under which he agreed to adhere to their updated impartiality rules.
For
violating these guidelines Lineker was suspended by the BBC.
Despite
these guidelines, the BBC
Chief has acknowledged it has a liberal bias which he pledged to confront.
BBC’s
liberal bias is apparent to anyone watching.
The BBC
Head Richard Sharp was
criticized for failing to declare his involvement in facilitating a loan
for then-Prime Minister Boris Johnson shortly before he was appointed to the
role.
BBC
America’s Katty Kay
frequently appeared on Democrat mouthpiece MSNBC, but somehow that didn’t seem
to upset the BBC.
The BBC's global service has been deeply biased in covering the US. They have accepted various Democrat conspiracy theories against President Trump that were amplified by the US mainstream media.
BBC veterans such as Sir Mark Tully would have never allowed this to happen.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_QXpXdM-XI
It is
still commendable that they have some guidelines and that these guidelines are
enforced.
In the
US on a channel such as MSNBC, a contributor would probably be promoted for
calling comparing President Trump with Hitler or his administration with the
Nazis
Linekar
is a serial violator who has on many occasions expressed
controversial ideas on Twitter.
Lineker
was a vocal opponent of Brexit and backed the campaign for another EU referendum, claiming
Brexit felt very " very wrong indeed".
Lineker
tweeted against arrests in
the West Bank and lamented the
killing of a Palestinian footballer who was eventually found to be a Hamas terrorist.
Linekar
tweeted
baseless claims that the British conservative party was taking money from
the Russians
Back
to Lineker’s suspension.
The
decision triggered a wave of condemnation from Lineker's colleagues who boycotted
their duties for the next broadcast compelled the BBC to use their
radio commentary service in place.
The
spin doctors attempted to suggest that Lineker was suspended for being critical
of the government which run by the British conservative party
So
what does one make of this?
Is
this an infringement of free speech?
Lineker’s
opinion about the anti-migrant bull was obviously a scandalous overstatement
and insensitive.
But
in a democracy, all expressions should be allowed, even the vilest of ones.
Piers
Morgan tweeted that “if we don’t cherish & fiercely protect free speech,
even for views we personally despise, we’re no better than totalitarian”
https://twitter.com/piersmorgan/status/1634472186688806914?s=20
But
Lineker's free speech rights weren’t violated. He hasn’t been detained or arrested.
His tweets still remain – Twitter hasn’t suppressed them and neither has law
enforcement compelled to delete them.
What
has happened is a violation of his employment clause which Linekar signed out
of his own volition. The clauses were not discriminatory in any form. It just
demanded that if he wanted to work for the BBC even on a contractual basis, he
had to adhere to the rules and refrain from commenting on political issues.
If
free speech mattered to Linekar, he should have rejected the BBC’s employment
offer and chosen to work at any organization where he was permitted to express
himself more freely.
Unlike
the US, the UK has strict guidelines that are monitored by government-approved
regulators such as Ofcom.
Ofcom
has the authority to suspend
broadcasting licenses which results in shutting down news networks.
They can also issue
fines against violators.
Ofcom
doesn’t always issue punitive actions.
When
Pier Morgan said he didn’t trust Meghan Markle's scurrilous allegations against
the Royal family during her interview with Oprah, Ofcom received around 58,000
complaints - the highest in Ofcom's 18-year history. Morgan was sacked by his
channel ITV for refusing to issue an apology to Markle.
https://youtu.be/8da7BkPBrrk
But
Ofcom cleared Morgan
and the channel that broadcasted his comments
So
could a government regulatory body such as Ofcom work in the US?
On paper, regulations would have prevented the US mainstream media from peddling hoaxes about the Trump-Russia collusion, the violent insurrection on January 6th, and so numerous other vicious falsehoods about President Trump.
But
there is another side to this.
What
if Ofcom is infiltrated by Democrats like most powerful organizations within
the US are. What if they had hired Republicans such as Kinzinger and Romney to
demonstrate impartiality?
This
organization would immediately shut down any organization that violates the
Democrat groupthink.
While
big corporate media organizations have the means to hire teams of lawyers to
defend their cases for as long as it takes, smaller organizations will not have
that luxury and will shut down.
The
First Amendment which protects freedom of speech and the press is hence
the best system.
The First Amendment enables independent media outlets to counter spurious claims made by Democrat mouthpieces which is vital for American Democracy to survive.
Also appears on American Thinker
Comments
Post a Comment