Saturday, 28 April 2018

Is UK Gov. Using “Hate Speech” Laws to Try to Cover Up Murder of Alfie Evans?

Written by 

It’s bad enough that the British government played medical judge and jury before the death of little Alfie Evans, denying his parents the opportunity to take him to Italy for care. They also, say critics, have used the hate-speech principle to cover up their own complicity.

As reported Wednesday, before Alfie passed on:

British police have announced that they will monitor and prosecute anyone who posts on social media a “malicious communication” supporting Alfie Evans or complaining about the hospital and courts.

Nevermind [sic] that Alder Hey Children’s Hospital is apparently misleading the court about Alfie, if anyone posts anything negative about the hospital or its officials and their treatment of Alfie, apparently they will be monitored and potentially prosecuted by local police in London.

At issue is the tweet below, sent by UK police:

merseyside police tweet

Here is the Facebook post to which the tweet links:

mercyside police facebook

As points out, the reaction was predictable:




In fairness, there is another side to this story. Since British protesters did clash with police and try to force their way into the hospital, defenders of the Internet monitoring would say that the authorities are merely trying to identify looming threats. Of course, though the government’s cause here is tyrannically unjust, this would be a logical course of action.

The problem is that the UK government is essentially the boy who cried “wolf!” In Britain in particular, but also in Germany, Sweden, Canada, and elsewhere, “hate speech” laws have been the go-to tactic to stifle politically incorrect dissent, to quash truth-speaking tongues sounding the alarm about government social engineering. And given that people have lost their jobs and have even been arrested on this basis — with criticism of Islam and, sometimes, homosexuality generally being the reason — suspicion of the government censors is warranted.

Regardless, the real trespass in the Alfie Evans case lies with the British government. To recap the events preceding the infant’s death, as the Washington Post reported Thursday, the “Italian government granted the child Italian citizenship and lined up a transportation plan that could swiftly bring the sick 23-month-old boy to a Vatican hospital.” Alfie’s doctors, however, said he could not be healed and “shouldn’t make the trip at all.”

“On Tuesday, a British judge sided with the doctors, saying that the family cannot accept the offer to take Alfie to the Vatican for treatment. An appeals court swiftly re-heard the case and upheld the previous day’s ruling, saying on Wednesday that Alfie cannot leave the country,” the Post continued.

Alfie suffered from some undiagnosed degenerative brain condition and, from a worldly perspective, his case did appear hopeless. But it’s not just that miracles do occur. It’s this: Who should have the ultimate say in the child’s fate, the parents or the state?

The Evans’ boy’s plight was a replay of the 2017 case of Charlie Gard, another seriously ill British infant forcibly held by a UK hospital and denied outside care. Suffering from the rare genetic disease Mitochondrial DNA Depletion Syndrome, Gard had been offered experimental treatment in the United States. Yet as with Evans, socialized-medicine doctors and, outrageously, judges, ultimately decided his fate. (Note: Given that a very rational anti-judge judge I know well told me, speaking literally, that he believes most judges are sociopaths, this should give us pause.)

This story should also give pause about socialized medicine and big government in general, for “He who pays the piper, calls the tune.” Empower the state to make life-or-death decisions for us and become the “single-payer” (which Sen. Bernie Sanders wants), and it will begin taking ownership of us.

The kicker is that once achieving master status, the state will dictate even when not paying the freight. The Evans and Gard boys were cases in point: The British government denied them even their chance at privately funded outside care. Another example is “Mr. D.,” a Swedish multiple sclerosis sufferer denied a more expensive new drug that might have mitigated his symptoms, even though he was willing to pay for it himself. Explanation?

The government claimed it was concerned about setting a bad precedent and violating the principle of equal access to medicine for all.

Yet despite the virtue signaling, the Evans and Gard cases may transmit a very dark underlying message: “You will obey the state — even to the point of death. And the state will make this clear — even to the point of murder.”

Of course, most doctors have good intentions, and modern Western medicine has saved billions of lives during history’s course. But physicians aren’t God. Just consider the case of 59-year-old George Pickering, whose then-27-year-old son, George III, had been labeled brain dead in 2015. “Doctors declared there was no more hope for him,” reported the Daily Mail at the time, and “ordered a ‘terminal wean’ —whereby life support is slowly withdrawn to end a life.”

That’s when Pickering Sr., claiming misdiagnosis, marched into Tomball Regional Medical Center in Texas with a gun, prompting a three-hour standoff. He said he needed a few hours to determine if his boy truly was brain dead. During that time, “George squeezed my hand three or four times on command,” said the father, which was the response he wanted. He then surrendered peacefully to authorities.

Oh, and his son emerged from his coma and now is fully recovered.

No, doctors, judges, and the state aren’t God — and they shouldn’t be allowed to play such.

Photo showing flowers and toys left outside Alder Hey Children’s Hospital following Alfie Evans’ death: AP Images

Please review our Comment Policy before posting a comment

Affiliates and Friends

Social Media