UK government & liberal politicians censor Christians

[Whitehall_Bin_Men]

Does this decision by Owen Jones have anything to do with his homosexuality? Mother Agnes is not a supporter of gay rights! Perhaps the taboo of Christ's condemnation of homosexuality is at the heart of this dispute which utterly discredits the Stop The War coalition and its leaders who may be allowing their support for gay rights to get in the way of their real war stopping job?


Mother Agnes and the ‘liberal’ hawks out to silence her
Neil Clark @NeilClark66
Published time: 20 Nov, 2013 14:16
https://www.rt.com/op-edge/mother-agnes-liberal-interventionists-026/

The ‘pro-free speech’ but actually very anti-free speech bullies have got a new target. A 61-year old nun called Mother Agnes-Mariam who has been living in Syria for twenty years and who runs a campaign called Mussahala (Reconciliation).

For the West‘s ‘liberal hawks’ and serial interventionists, this elderly lady, who is working tirelessly for peace and an end to the bloodshed in Syria, has become Public Enemy Number One.

Mother Agnes has been subject to a vicious internet campaign of character assassination, smears and defamation. We’ve been told that she is an ‘Assad apologist,’ ‘Assad‘s favourite nun’- she has even been called ‘the Syrian equivalent of one of Hitler’s brown priests’.

When the liberal hawks and serial warmongers saw that Mother Agnes had been invited to speak at the forthcoming international conference of Stop the War, they had a collective hissy fit.

An ’Assad apologist’ speaking to a large audience in Britain?! Why, in the name of ‘free speech‘ and ‘democracy‘ it must not be allowed! We must Stop the Nun! Two 'A List’speakers at the Stop the War event – Owen Jones and Jeremy Scahill – were urged by Mother Agnes’ enemies via Twitter not to share a platform with the nun. ‘Dear Owen/Jeremy, do you know who you’re sharing a platform with?’ style tweets were sent. The two were sent links to articles attacking Mother Agnes.

Jones and Scahill unfortunately bowed to the pressure, and said that they would withdraw from the conference if Mother Agnes was also on the platform. At the weekend Stop the War announced that Mother Agnes had withdrawn from the conference. Her dignified, graceful letter to Stop the War was in sharp contrast to the nastiness of the attacks made on her by her accusers.

Why were the liberal hawks and supporters of the Syrian ‘revolution’ so frightened of an elderly nun addressing a Stop the War conference? If she really was a ‘crackpot’ – another claim made against her – then surely that would have been obvious to those listening to her? Lots of lurid claims have been made against Mother Agnes, someone even claimed on Twitter on Tuesday that she worked ‘with Assad intelligence’, but evidence to back up the claims is decidedly thin on the ground.

The reason she has been attacked – and why it was so important to stop her speaking at the Stop the War event- is because her first-hand account of what has actually been happening in Syria challenges the dominant western narrative.

Mother Agnes-Marie de la Croix and the Red Cresent (unseen) with the help of the Social Affairs Ministry, lead the evacuation of Syrian civilians from the war-battered suburb of Damascus, Moadamiyet al-Sham, as fighting between pro-government troops and rebel fighters continues in districts of the capital, on October 29, 2013. (AFP Photo)

This dominant narrative says that all the deaths in Syria are the responsibility of the Evil Dictator Bashar al-Assad, a crazed Hitleresque tyrant who since 2011 has been massacring his own people and has even used chemical weapons against them. The dominant narrative says that the Syrian conflict is a clear case of Good vs. Evil, the anti-Assad rebels are Good, Assad and his government are Evil.

Mother Agnes’ testimony challenges this dominant narrative- which is why for the liberal hawks, she is so dangerous.

She has revealed how the ’Good Guys’, who we ’plebs’ in the West are supposed to be cheering on, have been guilty of mass murder.

“Everyone in Syria is facing grave danger. There was a case of Muslim religious leaders being kidnapped and beheaded. They were humiliated and tortured. Ismailis, the Druze, Christians – people from all parts of Syrian society – are being mass murdered. I would like to say that if these butchers didn’t have international support, no one would have dared to cross the line. But today, unfortunately, the violation of human rights and genocide in Syria is covered up on the international level,” Mother Agnes told RT in September.

In the same interview she also questioned the dominant narrative which said that the Syrian government was responsible for the chemical weapons attack at Ghouta in August.

It’s not hard to understand why liberal hawks and the serial interventionists didn’t want Mother Agnes’ to address a well-attended event in London.

The appalling atrocities committed by the rebels- which include the regular terrorist bombing of civilian targets and beheadings, need to be played down, otherwise the ‘plebs’ will be asking: why are our governments in the west siding with such people? In the same way, the dominant narrative regarding the Ghouta attack - i.e. that it was carried out by Assad- must, under no circumstances, be questioned- even if no conclusive evidence has yet been produced to prove that the Syrian government was indeed responsible.

Mother Agnes’ testimony reveals that the so-called ‘War on Terror’ is a sham - that in Syria, the western countries and their regional allies, Saudi Arabia and Israel, are on the same side as the extremist Islamic terror groups that we are told are our greatest enemies.

In my RT OpEdge column last week I discussed how the label ‘conspiracy theorist’ was used by elite gatekeepers to silence dissent and narrow the parameters of debate. In the case of Syria, the preferred technique is to label anyone who challenges the dominant narrative as ‘pro-Assad’, or an ‘Assad apologist‘.

It doesn’t matter if the person/individuals concerned have come out publicly and said that they don’t support President Assad- the charge will still be made against those who dare to question the official line.

The media monitoring group Media Lens @MediaLens for instance have made it clear that they oppose all violence in Syria, whoever is behind it, but that still doesn’t stop them being smeared as ‘pro-Assad’ by ‘liberal’ hawks for their exposure of media bias on Syria.

Mother Agnes-Marie de la Croix (R) and the Red Cresent (unseen) with the help of the Social Affairs Ministry, receive Syrian civilians as they evacuate the war-battered suburb of Damascus, Moadamiyet al-Sham, as fighting between pro-government troops and rebel fighters continues in districts of the capital, on October 29, 2013. (AFP Photo)

The aim of this ’pro-Assad’ labelling is to marginalise those who dispute the dominant narrative. Someone labelled as ’pro-Assad’ is deemed, by elite gatekeepers, to be ‘outside civilised debate’, but of course there is no such exclusion order served on those who support or defend rebels who bomb innocent civilians, behead people and who persecute Christians and religious minorities.

In Britain and America- countries which like to boast of their commitment to free speech and free expression, it is considered beyond the pale for any public figure to say that they support/defend a secular government which defends Christians and other religious minorities and which is fighting Al Qaeda and other extremist terrorist groups, and which, very probably, enjoys support of the majority of people in Syria. However, it is deemed perfectly acceptable for public figures to say that they are on the same side as ‘rebels’ who put bombs in crowded public areas, behead people and murder religious minorities, or to call for military action to help these 'rebels' topple the Syrian government.

Terrified of being branded ‘pro-Assad’, public figures in the west who oppose military strikes on Syria, feel obliged to stress just how ’barbaric’ the Assad government is and they support Assad standing trial for war crimes at The Hague. And of course, they must agree not to share platforms with people like Mother Agnes. They have to bow down very low indeed before the 'liberal' hawks and elite gatekeepers, if they’re permitted to have their say on Syria and escape the usual smears, vilifications and defamation.

The campaign against Mother Agnes and the elite gatekeeping on Syria shows us how much free speech and free expression is under threat in Britain today from those who are determined to narrow the parameters of debate and to dictate who should and who should not be allowed a microphone. Expressing his disappointment that Mother Agnes would not be speaking at the Stop the War conference, Twitter user Orlando Hill said that he would like to have heard a ‘wide spectrum of opinions’ on Syria on 30th November. But the very last thing liberal hawks, neo-cons and supporters of the Syrian ‘revolution’ want is for people to hear a ‘wide spectrum of opinions’. The dominant narrative must not be questioned. Or else.

[Whitehall_Bin_Men]

Kevin McKenna: Those driving Christianity underground in Scotland
http://www.heraldscotland.com/opinion/14708460.Kevin_McKenna__Those_dr iving_Christianity_underground_in_Scotland/

During the national debate on our constitutional future two years ago many of us felt Scotland, as a nation, had acquitted itself very well. In the eyes of overseas observers the Scottish independence referendum had set the gold standard for similar campaigns around the globe in the future. During this period I encountered several journalists from foreign publications and each expressed their admiration at how dramatic, yet civilised, the process was turning out to be. These men and women had witnessed almost 90 per cent of the eligible population turning out to vote and marvelled at how many of them had become energised by the process.

For the first time many people, whom politics had left uninterested or with feelings of alienation, felt included. It seemed Scotland’s claim to be an enlightened democracy that valued diversity, equality and fairness was not an over-stated one. Since then Scotland has set more gold standards in implementing equality for our LGBTI community and in welcoming refugees into our midst.

Yet, a feeling persists that many who value progress such as this and have campaigned for it would nonetheless deprive Scotland’s Christian community of similar rights.

Earlier this week it was revealed East Renfrewshire Council was considering asking for "proof of Catholicism" as a key factor in ensuring Catholic children were given priority when their parents sought to enrol them in over-subscribed Catholic schools in the area. Such is the popularity of St Ninian’s Secondary, one of Scotland’s top-performing state schools, thousands of families of all faiths and none have moved into the catchment area in the hope of their children gaining access to it.

Inevitably, this move came under scrutiny in BBC Radio Scotland’s mid-morning phone-in show. The topic for debate was simple: should proof of faith be a factor in children gaining access to a faith school. It soon became clear though, that it wasn’t East Renfrewshire Council’s proposal which was being examined here but the entire existence of Catholic schools in Scotland (they comprise more than 95 per cent of our faith schools).


The theory advanced by several callers to the show that there is no place in a modern, enlightened Scotland "for these schools" is one that has become an emblem for the secular Humanist movement in this country. The ideas of this group are gaining influence in each of our main political parties and indeed dominate the Green Party and the Scottish Liberal Democrats. The movement is implacable in achieving its primary goal of removing all vestiges of the Christian religion from Scottish public life.

Their number one target, as it always has been, is Catholic education and the arguments have changed little over many years. Catholic schools cause sectarianism; they take children away from their childhood friends; if Catholics want them they should be made to pay for them. In smart, enlightened, diverse and inclusive Scotland it seems some are to feel more "included" than others.

We’ll leave aside, for the moment that, not a shred of evidence exists to back the assertion that faith schools encourage sectarianism. Indeed, if such evidence existed, Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Education would have picked it up. And don’t many parents take their children from state schools to private schools in the course of their schooling? If the secularist lobby don’t want children being taken away from their friends then they should introduce a law forbidding families from ever moving away from a neighbourhood until their children’s schooling has been completed.

Catholic schools, especially those in disadvantaged communities, consistently deliver results above and beyond what would normally be expected of schools operating in such neighbourhoods. Only in Scotland would people seriously consider jettisoning a sector of our education service that gives the country value for money. The rights of parents to have their children educated according to their religious faith is guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights

I suspect though, that this isn’t really about Catholic schools at all and that it’s really about seeking to subjugate Christianity in Scotland until it has disappeared underground.

Indeed, in recent years the Catholic hierarchy has had cause to thank the Reverend David Robertson for his outspoken and eloquent defences of Christianity. The Rev Robertson is the irrepressible Moderator of the Free Church of Scotland and has become a hate figure for the secularists. He has an annoying knack of not just preaching the Gospel of Jesus but also of justifying it in a secular and philosophical marketplace.

Previously, secular Scotland was content merely to mock the "Wee Frees" as a religious pantomime act and so their beliefs were indulged. Now they have a leader who is eloquent, charismatic, learned and urbane they must be put back in their box. To silence him his opponents have fallen back on an old favourite: the distortion of language.

Thus Rev Robertson has been denounced as being homophobic, despite there not being a shred of evidence to support this either. Like many other leaders of Christian congregations, when asked, he has stated the common Christian belief that marriage was instituted by Jesus for men and women to be joined together to mirror Jesus’ relationship with His Church and for the pre-creation of children. This is neither homophobic nor hateful, yet Rev Robertson is deemed to be an extremist for espousing this belief.

In smart successful, enlightened and diverse Scotland you’re simply not permitted to utter the phrase: “I believe that, according to my faith, marriage is exclusively a union between a man and a woman.” Nor, it would seem, are you allowed any longer to state your belief unborn children are human beings, for this too is to be dismissed as a controversialist or an extremist. Though it still hasn’t adequately been explained to me quite why defending the human rights of unborn children is "extremist" behaviour.

I don’t intend to get involved in the non-story of the Unionists’ feverish imaginations regarding the fate of Stephen Daisley last week. Mr Daisley is an editor of STV’s online content and an extremely good essayist, whose output has occasionally caused consternation among the SNP and their devotees. Of these there have been very few recently, leading some to think the SNP forced STV to silence him, despite there being not a scintilla of evidence to justify such a claim.

What I found most interesting about this social media spat – and not a little disturbing – was that Mr Daisley’s anti-abortion views were held to be "extremist". For, in modern Scotland, several reasonable, Christian positions are now deemed to be outrageous and beyond the pale in the new secular, orthodoxy of this country that is supposed to value diversity.

This is the language of the witch-finder general and it is beginning to cast its shadow all over the country. Such though, is life in this one Scotland of many cultures where, it seems, some cultures are held to be less than others.