Parliament's Broken Moral Compass: The Power Play Over 'Inflammatory' Language

The unprincipled hypocrisy of the calls from the Liberal Democrats for the Prime Minister to 'moderate your language' is astounding. The words singled out for condemnation are 'surrender' and 'humbug', yet the Liberal Democrats are blocking a democratic General Election and seek to overturn the democratic referendum that they voted to enact via Article 50, and this is all done under their carefully chosen slogan 'B*llocks to Brexit'; an equivalent message to - and barely less intemperate language than - 'B*llocks to the individual sovereignty of the leave voter, b*llocks to your vote, B*llocks to you'.
Kettle. Pot. Black.

Puritan grand standers on the same side of the argument further attempt to claim the moral high ground by associating an individual's murder by terrorism with the rhetoric of the argument they do not like. In their pursuit of power over their political opponent, this piousness simply exposes their lack of moral fibre rather than demonstrate it (as no doubt their broken moral compass guides them to imagine that it does); the use of the deceased individual's tragedy as a political weapon like this is itself disrespectful to that individual's memory. In other words, to respect the memory of such a tragedy would be to not use it as a political weapon.

Regardless, 'Moderate your language' isn't a counter argument to claims you don't agree with. It is finger wagging authoritarian moral blackmail; a means to silence the political opponent rather than address the argument. It is to say: 'Don't say things I don't like.'.

The claim made to justify such finger wagging - that the language is 'inflammatory' - is a fallacy, and here is why: An individual (including the Prime Minister) is responsible for their own actions, not the actions of others (be they hypothetical individuals in the future or a terrorist murderer in the past). It is a guilt by association logical fallacy to claim there is a connection between one individual's words used in a debate with the intent to maximise well being and another individual somewhere who may use the same words with clearly an alternative malevolent intent. Direct incitement of specific individuals to crime is immoral and illegal, but that case does not apply here whatsoever, so we rest on the default liberal principle; the expression of views with impunity (especially in the House of Parliament) for the purpose of being tested is the very bedrock of liberal democracy and a liberal civilisation. Stifling it is tyrannical.

It appears to me to be no coincidence, therefore, that those exhibiting this tyrannical tendency are also blocking a democratic general election and seeking to overturn the democratic referendum - a morally binding contract (regardless of legal 'status') between the voter majority that voted leave (representing the decision of the people), and also thus a morally binding contract between Parliament (since they enacted Article 50) and the same majority leave voters. Overturning the referendum is thus immoral. Geoffry Cox was thus right to say Parliament is immoral (sounce: is.gd/fq7t3P). A general election is the democratic fix. In addition to attempting to stifle free expression, the blocking of democracy (now escalated to blocking both the democratic referendum and a democratic general election) is tyrannical, pretty much by definition.