First UK Non-Political Party



*This is the second version of this video as we are always looking to improve and progress, there will be many more versions in the future. Please send your ideas and or comments on this video for us to consider HERE. Thank you – NONPOL Team

Freedom of Speech (Video Transcript)

  1. A British Constitution 

NONPOL believes Freedom of Speech is the single most important issue facing the western world today. Over the last few decades individuals rights to have freedom of speech have been eroded either by Government, law or powerful minority groups. Furthermore the ideology of woke and cancel culture continues to erode these rights almost on a daily basis. If action is not taken to reverse this trend, then the UK will end up in a dictatorship where the people are unable to say what they believe and will be physically silenced if they speak up; similar to the regimes in Russia, North Korea and China.  NONPOL would enforce the right to full Freedom of Speech into a British Constitution, similar to that in the United States. The 1st amendment in America guarantees freedom of expression. Why can such a young country full of foreigners have such a fundamental right when the UK doesn’t? 

NONPOL would have the same 1st amendment as the US in its British Constitution. Obviously freedom of speech would have to be within the law and not be used to generate violence However Freedom of speech can be used to rally a group of people to voice their opinions in public peacefully.. The Berlin wall came down based purely on the German people being able to peacefully rally for their beliefs. 

Our 2nd amendment would be that ‘The Individual is sacred and can choose the life they want, within the law.’ If a woman wants to be a transgender monk, that’s her choice. But she can’t be a transgender paedophile. More importantly our 3rd Amendment would be that ‘Any group or ideology must be open to and accept criticism, in order to provide balance to the narrative; where the criticism is based on rational, personal or factual arguments.’ If a person believes the transgender monk was not natural, they should have the right to say that without fear of victimisation. Our 4th amendment would be that equal rights are available to all individuals but not equal opportunities. Quotas and mandatory placement of minorities are deemed special rights and not equal rights. People should achieve their goals and careers based on merit and not favouritism or wokism. Our 5th amendment would be that the individual has freedom of movement, freedom of choice and will be protected against any physical harm. Other amendments would be introduced to protect the individual, primarily based on the current Human Rights Act of 2018, however once an individual is incarcerated some of these rights would be suspended to ensure a criminal could not abuse or use these rights to their advantage. 

 2. Redefining Hate speech 

Hating somebody or something, such as an ideology, should not be against the law. Most people would not object to somebody hating paedophilia, beastiality or necrophilia.  People should be able to choose what they hate. Aston Villa fans hate Birmingham City fans. Hate is not illegal. Violence driven by hatred is illegal, but we should all have the right to non-violent hate. Many people in Ukraine probably hate Putin, even though they don’t know him personally. Putin probably hates NATO. Whatever the situation we should have a right to passively hate things we do not like. Because of Wokism hate speech is now seen as anything that hurts somebody’s feelings and we have lost the right to hate something. Hate is a strong emotion and should not be diluted as long as it is managed fairly. There are 2 sides to all debates, and it is likely that each sides hates the other side’s opinion. Remove hate from the equation and we remove the right to argue or disagree. If somebody believes homosexuality is biologically unnatural, they have that right to speak up without being accused of hate speech. This does not mean they hate every homosexual, only that they hate the overall anti-biological concept. Remember under the NONPOL British Constitution, it states everyone is sacred, so every homosexual is sacred and must be accepted by us all. However, the group or ideology must be open to criticism without people being punished under ridiculous hate crime ideology.  It’s time for people to brave up and not wilt from other people’s words, but to stand up for what they believe in without the fear of violence or being ostracised. History has shown the people who are brave enough to speak out have changed the world; let’s get the UK to reverse the trend and be the first nation to create an environment when people have the right to peacefully hate something they don’t like.  

 3. Facts are more important than feelings 

The temperature in Birmingham at midday on 20 Nov 2023 was 19 degrees, this is a fact and as no feelings were hurt and it is not controversial we can accept it without further discussion. This fact however, had many conditions that created that temperature such as position from the sun, weather fronts, ground pressure etc. Again as we have little or no control over the conditions, we accept the fact. The fact is that facts do not have feelings, they just report on reality. However the fact that the Prison Reform Trust reported in 2022 that 27% of the UK Prison population were from an ethnic background, even though the ethnic minorities only make up 3% of the UK population. upsets the woke fraternity, especially if the police use this fact to focus some areas of their policing activities. Of course this does not mean 27% of all ethnic people are criminals, that is a false fact that idiots come to. There are also reasons behind these facts, however they only explain the fact, they do not remove the fact. Unfortunately racism, as well as religion, environmentalism, genderism and many new ‘is-ums’ have been weaponised so that the minority control the discussions of the majority. A lot of conditions led to this 27% prison statistic, but it is still a fact and should be used accordingly rather than complaining it is an unfair fact or as somebody once said, an ‘inconvenient truth’. Recognising and sharing facts it is the first step to addressing them and in some cases fixing them. In the states this figure exceeds 50% and unless the police react appropriately to this fact the UK could match that figure in the next decade. We can’t ignore the facts that we are uncomfortable with or that hurt people’s feelings, especially when the facts only hurt a minority of people. The minority should never control the narrative of majority. These issues need a platform for fair discussion from both sides. NONPOL believe that facts cannot be considered as Hate crime if they are understood in context, regardless of who’s feelings they hurt. NONPOL are more concerned when the facts hurt more than 70% of the population; such as if 70% of the population hate the idea of the WHO being able in the future to mandate a lockdown in the UK during another pandemic. Currently the WHO are seeking to impose this stipulation on the UK government and at some time in the future it could be a FACT that the WHO have total control of the UK public with regards to health issues. In cases like this NONPOL would take action to impact, remove or lesson facts that impact the feelings or actions of 70% or more of the UK population. 

 4. The right to disagree. 

Currently if someone believes that the Jewish tradition of circumcising a baby boy is child abuse, they may be seen as antisemitic. Similarly, if someone believes the Muslim tradition of Female Genital Mutilation is child abuse, again they may be seen as Islamophobic. Some people may also believe that a catholic child is being mentally abused if at holy communion they are being told they are eating the body or Christ, and the priest is drinking Christ’s blood. People have lost the right to disagree with things they don’t like. Cancel culture, the weaponisation of minority views and the misuse of the concept of hate crime has made it very difficult for the ordinary person to disagree with something they don’t like. NONPOL believe that everybody has a right to disagree with someone or something without any reprisal. Some views may seem idiotic, such as the flat earth theory. Be these flat earth believers have as much right to disagree with the perceived common sense as anyone else. It does not make them bad people and it certainly isn’t hate crime, although some people may find them tedious. We all have a right to be an idiot. An idiot can ask more questions that a genius can answer and many an idiotic question has challenged culture and sometimes changed human understanding, such as with Ptolemy. Playing devil’s advocate can often strengthen or weak one side of the argument, so is a very powerful strategy in discussions and therefore vital to a healthy society. 

 5. The right to dislike 

Vegetarians don’t eat meat, pescatarians don’t see fish as meat, some people do not find woman’s football attractive, some people dislike musicals, some women find feminists offensive, and most people despised Adolf Hitler. What is important is that we have free will and choose what we like and dislike.  NONPOL believe we should always have the right to not only decide what we dislike but have the freedom to voice that dislike without fear of being attacked.  If someone thinks the cutting of a cow’s throat for Halal meat is animal cruelty, they are likely to be frightened to say anything because of the backlash from the religious community. If somebody believes that experiments on animals is important for medicine in humans, they fear attack from the animal rights activists.   If Larry Page believes Elon Musk is a speciesist so, be it. Some people dislike the monarchy and amazingly some people dislike marmite, heaven knows why, but it shows we are all different and like and dislike people or things. NONPOL believe it is a fundamental human right to dislike something and to be able to express such a dislike. 

 6. Severe punishment for retaliation 

People are frightened to speak up today for fear of retaliation either through violence or harm to their career. As part of NONPOL’s mission to bring free speech to every individual, we would introduce harsh penalties for retaliation against free speech. Offenders who retaliation against free speech would receive a custodial sentence and a criminal record. 

  7. The Individual is sacred. 

As stated in our proposed British Constitution, NONPOL believe that the individual is sacred, meaning they can be who they want to without fear of reprisals, as long as their beliefs and actions are within the law.  No matter what their culture, religion, gender, sexual preference, politics or other ideology, if they are a British citizen, as an individual, they have equal rights and freedom of speech. All British citizens will be protected by the NONPOL British constitution. However, as also stated in our British Constitution, their beliefs and ideologies can be challenged and criticised by people of opposing views. 

 8. Freedom of movement 

Oxford, Bristol, Canterbury and Sheffield councils are trying to introduce 15-minute cities, namely, to have all public needed amenities within 15 to 20 minutes of the local population. This has been misconstrued by some people as trying to restrict the movement of the population, based on rumours and articles coming out of the WEF. Fortunately, at this stage, this is not the case. However, with many cities imposing 20 miles per hour speed limits as well as widening ULEZ zones, the movement of cars is being continually restricted. In time it may be easier to walk or cycle everywhere and people will be conditioned to only travel locally. This is all part of a stupid goal to reach net zero but indirectly it may also be perceived as controlling the movement of people, as was tried with COVID. NONPOL thinks net zero is technically impossible, especially when war has a huge carbon footprint and nations like China and India continue to pollute the planet with impunity.  The futile attempt to achieve net zero, besides being a woke crusade, is a huge cost to our economy and once our economy is weakened and we have failed to meet net zero, China will be in a prime position for global economy domination. Furthermore, the WHO want to introduce digital passports that control people’s movement across borders, this is not a rumour, this is fact. NONPOL not only will strongly enforce a person’s right to free movement in the UK, but also ensure there is free international movement. We would remove all 20 miles per hour speed limit and increase the maximum limit from 70 to 80, like the rest of Europe. Freedom of movement is as important as freedom of speech, and we will support the motorist rather than punish them. The evolution of man has only been possible with freedom of movement and NONPOL will make it a constitutional right to maintain that for all UK citizens. 

  9. No control from Global organisation outside of military 

WHO, WEF and United Nations as global organisations do not work, as the powerful members control all the decisions, which means no global decisions are effective. In particular they do not work for the UK. As we are too small to protect ourselves against global wars, we currently need to be members of NATO, although NONPOL would ensure every NATO member would contribute the resources they have signed up to and the UK would pay over the odds. NONPOL would redefine our military resources so that they protect the UK and not other regions where our soldiers do not need to be. NONPOL would withdraw from WHO, United Nations and WEF and look to create better global organisations that are not driven by Bollotics and the Military Industrial Complex. 

Reference 1 – Future of the First Amendment 2022: High schooler views on speech over time

Reference 2 – Articles on Cancel culture

Click Below to see our Freedom of Speech Tolerance Page