Paul Joseph Watson Threatened Over AIDS Article

From
http://www.infowars.com/?p=1552



http://www.aidsfraudvideo.com/


Paul Joseph Watson Threatened Over AIDS Article
Kurt Nimmo

Infowars
April 17, 2008


For the crime of writing a politically incorrect article on homosexuals, AIDS, and blood donations — see “Offensive” Gay Blood Donation Ban Could Be Overturned Despite Aids Risk — Prison Planet editor and writer Paul Joseph Watson is coming under fire in his native England.
As Alex Jones explained on his radio show today, Watson faces potential arrest and prosecution for reporting the news that homosexual activists “are trying to get a ban overturned on accepting blood donations from gay and bisexual men in the UK because it is ‘offensive,’ despite the fact that such a change would increase the risk of HIV infection by 50%, in the latest example of political correctness lunacy that is endangering society,” as Watson wrote on April 15.
“I am a straight man, fighting the New World Order and agree with most I read on this site,” an Infowars reader complained in an email. “But Paul Watson’s article on Gay blood Transfusions is bordering on a speech by Adolph Hitler. I am taking a copy of this article and may even hand it over to the British Police. There is still a legitimate reason to use the police, and this is it. He should be thrown out of the movement for that article alone. Watson is at risk of making us look those those we fight. I do not agree with all these hate laws when it comes to faith or such like. But this is just a blatant attack on these people designed to cause hate. I have worked with many gay people regarding 9/1. My Infowars Network Profile photos are of us being supported by Gay Pride Rally 2007 letting us set up a stool.”

Back in October, 2007, so called “Justice Secretary” Jack Straw in Britain announced it would be “a crime to incite hatred because of a person’s sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation,” in other words, simply reporting the news and pointing out “that overturning the ban would see HIV and AIDS skyrocket” is a crime against the British state.
Richard Ford and Ruth Gledhill, writing for the Times Online, continue:
Under the proposal it would be considered a crime to incite hatred against homosexual, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered and heterosexual people. Mr Straw said: “It is a measure of how far we have come as a society in the past ten years that we are now appalled by hatred and invective directed at people on the basis of their sexuality. It is time for the law to recognize this.”
Prosecutions will be brought only with the agreement of the Attorney-General. The new crime will cover people using threatening words or written material, or recording visual images or sounds that incite hatred because of sexual orientation.

Paul Joseph Watson did not threaten a single homosexual with “hatred,” but instead simply pointed out the lunacy of allowing the blood supply to be contaminated by AIDS, obviously a crime against the state, if we are to take Mr. Straw at his word and extrapolate, and not all that much. But then, in Britain and soon enough the United States, the “hatred” litmus test will be used to harass, arrest, and prosecute those who confront the political orthodoxy, as Watson does consistently.
Back in 2002, Robin Page, a corporate media columnist, was “arrested on suspicion of stirring up racial hatred after making a speech at a pro-hunting rally,” according to the Telegraph. Page “told his audience [at a country fair at Frampton-upon-Severn, Glos] that Londoners had the right to run their own events, such as the Brixton carnival and gay pride marches, which celebrated black and gay culture. Why therefore, he asked, should country people not have the right to do what they liked in the countryside.”


It did not seem to matter that the Prince of Wales had expressed a likewise opinion when he agreed “with a farmer from Cumbria who claimed that the farming community enjoyed less protection from discrimination than black or gay people,” according to Neil Tweedie of the Telegraph.
Watson and Page did not express hatred, they simply voiced opinions that run counter to the prevailing political orthodoxy, including special rights for homosexuals and other groups. Increasingly, expressing such opinions are considered a crime.