The Guardian calls for Political Censorship

It is not as if we did not know the liberal fascists at The Guardian were opposed to free speech; but it is nice to see them lay their cards on the table and openly call for its suppression.

The Guardian explains this week that silencing unpopular opinions is not a violation of free speech because “some debates should be shut down.”

While insisting that censorship of ideas is greatly exaggerated by free speech advocates, writer Martha Gill goes on to make the very argument that defenders of free speech criticize: that the wardens of groupthink have the right to silence opinions that they disagree with.

Coming to the defense of “those who might want to shut down a debate,” Ms. Gill insists that such a measure is not a “mark of intolerance” because “some debates should be shut down.”

“For public dialogue to make any progress, it is important to recognise when a particular debate has been won and leave it there,” she declares in her article, suggestively titled: “Free speech isn’t under threat. It just suits bigots and boors to suggest so.”

Reading between the lines, the lesson becomes: “We are the judges. We will tell you when the debate is over and then you are no longer permitted to express your dissenting opinion.”

As example of debates that are definitively over, Ms. Gill offers absurd positions that she trusts will garner a broad consensus: “whether women should be tried for witchcraft, or whether ethnic minorities should be allowed to go to university, or whether the Earth is flat.”

But Ms. Gill and her editors know that these are not the issues being debated today, and these are not the positions that the Guardian and others of the self-anointed sacerdotal caste decry as heretical.

If you hold the incorrect position on these and other issues the censors will silence you, because they believe you have no right to hold such benighted views.

“No-platformers are not scared – they simply think certain debates are over. You may disagree, but it does not mean they are against free speech,” Ms. Gill explains.

Well, Ms. Gill, who gets to decide when the debate on abortion, climate change, same-sex marriage, mass migration, gender theory, religious freedom, and sharia law is over? You? Your colleauges at The Guardian? The Government? What a scary thought that is!