Ireland jumps ahead in the race to have the most censorship in the free world

Remove Ads

Listen to this short clip of a speech from Ireland’s legislature. It’s just 41 seconds long. This is Green Party Senator Pauline O’Reilly

All law is about the restriction of freedom.

Most laws don’t have anything to do with freedom. If you skim Canada’s constitution act, you can see all the things it deals with — unemployment insurance, postal service, census, the military, navigation and shipping, fisheries, currency and coins, banks, weights and measures, bankruptcy, marriage, immigration. I’ll stop there.

Of course some of them absolutely do limit our freedoms. I mean, if you’re jailed under criminal law, that absolutely does limit your freedom of mobility or example. And I’m not here to say that government doesn’t infringe our freedoms — it does, way to much. But it’s an insane thing to say that all government is about shrinking your freedom, and that’s just something that’s normal and has to be accepted. That’s a bully’s idea, a madman’s idea, an authoritarian dictator's idea. That’s someone who doesn’t trust their friends and neighbours — but wants to rule over them.

She says the words “common good” so many times, like it’s a magic spell like it is sufficient to just say that, before taking away your rights. You have to stay in your homes — for the common good. You can’t go to school or to work or to a park, you can’t have a wedding or a funeral, you can’t go to church, you can’t have family over, you can’t have Christmas dinner — because of the common good. And these tyrants alone will decide what is or isn’t the common good. We just lived through three years of that and we found out it wasn’t for the common good — it hurt the common good, the lockdowns had no scientific basis, neither did the masks, and the vaccines didn’t actually vaccinate. They had no special knowledge; they just used Covid as the latest excuse; they’re using climate as an excuse; now as you can see, they’re using people’s feelings as a reason to take away your rights.

Did you catch that part: "If your views on other people's identities go to make their lives unsafe insecure and cause them such deep discomfort that they cannot live in peace… to restrict those freedoms.”

So if you merely have views that are wrong, you must be restricted. Views — you heard her. Views about other people's identities. You can’t have an opinion, because that will make other people uncomfortable. She said that. So you must have your freedom limited. Because your views cause someone else discomfort.

But what if what they do causes you discomfort? Is only one side of a debate allowed to cause discomfort? And is only the other side of a debate required to endure discomfort? Madness.

Remove Ads
Remove Ads

Start your free trial

Access exclusive members only RebelNews+ shows, event footage, and documentaries


Don't Get Censored

Big Tech is censoring us. Sign up so we can always stay in touch.

Remove Ads