The English Defence League was among a number of individuals and organisations whose Twitter accounts were purged on 18 December 2017, the day Twitter introduced its new rules.
The purge of a tranche of accounts was, in our opinion, a planned, contrived operation – Orwellian in its implications and sinister in the secretive alliances that brought the purge about and also chilling when one looks at the naive alliances that are permitting new encroachments and restrictions on free speech – a fundamental freedom on which our civilisation stands. The naive alliances remind us of the useful idiots like Sydney and Beatrice Webb and Bernard Shaw who in the 1930s chose to suspend their critical faculties when assessing Stalin’s tyranny.
It is likely that Twitter and organisations like Hope not Hate began working together some months ago to devise rules that could exclude accounts that did not suit their agendas. Twitter’s agenda is shareholder value and they are vulnerable to organised bullying from leftist pressure groups – like Antifa – whose members exult in their ability to cause distress to members of the civilisation they despise. The agenda of Antifa and Cultural Marxists (and the naive utopians who give them a free pass) is to transform society through revolution.
We posted many thousands of Tweets over the last four years and always took care to keep within Twitter’s existing guidelines. Our Tweets were mainly informational and focused on the relentless encroachment of the unacceptable face of Islam in the UK, with special reference to the sexual grooming and abuse of English girls by Muslim men. We documented this rape jihad – which has clear parallels to the use of rape as a weapon of war – assiduously. Every trial and conviction that was reported in the media was Tweeted to our followers.
As this was the focus of our actions on Twitter, we can only assume that our work in exposing and documenting the rape jihad was something Twitter and their accomplices wanted to suppress. Twitter can’t alter reality by suppressing the exposure of that reality. All they can do is increase suspicion and foster conspiracy theories – and then resentment and, ultimately anger and violence, when ordinary people discover they have been deliberately prevented from knowing the truth about what is going on in their own country and even in their own community.
Twitter had never found grounds to reprimand us, despite complaints made against us by provocateurs – and there have been many. The demands on Twitter to remove our account were unrelenting. Yet Twitter did not act against us – because we complied with their rules. The only strategy left for those who want to silence us was to engineer a change to the rules. And so they contrived to do this.
Once Twitter introduced new and retrospective guidelines that allowed them to delete an account, no matter how compliant that account was in other respects, if the associated organisation had, at any time, been involved in what Twitter (or their collaborators in the purge) regarded as unsavoury, then the account could be purged. This new rule enables Twitter (and those who lean on it) to suppress free speech without coming up against the First Amendment when their new rule is implemented in the USA. This moving of the goal posts not only during the game but made to apply in the past is the hallmark of dictators and bullies, not of an ethical corporation. Those who support this move may also soon become its victims.
Screenshot of Twitter’s reply to our appeal.
There is no appeal.
Twitter is accepting that it is a publisher – rather than a common carrier like the Post Office. We do not expect the Post Office to censor our mail. Why should we condone Twitter assessing the quality of our Tweets and punishing us if it does not approve of them? Why should we condone Twitter assessing the nature of our organisation in a kangaroo court and punishing us if it does not like us?
Are the laws of our land not able to deal with this issue? At least we could expect our laws to be applied even-handedly: one law for all.
We regard Twitter’s rules to be unfair and its application of its rules to be capricious, but acknowledge that Twitter, as a private company, can set and apply its own rules and its customers can accept them or go elsewhere. However, when a company has an oligopolistic market share, that dominance brings with it certain responsibilities to civil society as well as to its shareholders.
Sadly Twitter has been “oiling the squeaking [and bullying] wheel” to protect shareholder value in the short-term rather than taking a principled position to defend free speech, a bedrock of British values.
The English Defence League has opened an account at Gab.ai and will use that to provide the same information service the EDL provided on Twitter.