One of the plot devices of the Star Trek series is that the
captain and crew of the Enterprise, if they encounter a backward society, they must not “interfere” and preserve the society’s  “natural” progress to
civilization, or the state in which the Enterprise has reached.  This is called “The Prime Directive.”
It is akin to the “prime directive” of the U.K., by which citizens can be punished
for “derogating” or “defaming,” Islam.  Tommy Robinson and many
other British citizens
have been so punished. It is a Kantian moral imperative.

What has this to do with Tommy Robinson? Well, he violated Theresa May’s
Prime Directive: Thou shall not call Muslim rapists and groomers scum.  Or cast aspersions on their character.
I left this comment on Gatestone and
many other sites.
I’ve yet to see
anyone touch on the subject of Bills of Attainder, a subject I raise in my
column “Magna Carta in the Dustbin.” A bill of attainder allows the authorities
to snatch anyone off the street or from his home to be tried, convicted, and
imprisoned in secret (with or without a politician’s or legislature’s
endorsement). I have seen nothing about it in any blogsite commentary about
such a bill. It isn’t rocket science. Two clauses in the MC specifically do not
grant the government, or King John, the power of a bill of attainder, Nos. 38 and 39, publicly
or otherwise. Such a power is not even mentioned in the Statute of Westminster
of 1931. Because the power is prohibited in the U.S. Constitution (except
perhaps in wartime) I am surprised that no one, to my knowledge, has broached
the subject. A bill of attainder is a powerful tool of tyranny, which we see at
work in the U.K. with Robinson’s arrest and jailing.
A bill of attainder,
even it was called that, was once the exclusive tyrannical tool of Nazi
Germany, Soviet Russia, and Red China and a host of tinpot dictatorships.
Theresa May may or may not have signed
such a bill, but that is not irrelevant, either. Robinson’s arrest happened
under her watch, and she is responsible. It’s her policy to penalize anyone
criticizing Islam. You don’t need to be a legal expert to grasp the
implications. This is why I say Britain needs a written constitution that
incorporates a prohibition against this tool of tyranny.

I have yet to receive a response to this comment from any authoritative
site: not from Jihad
, Mark
, Pamela
, Gatestone (Bruce
) and other sites. Nor even from readers on my own Facebook page. It’s
as though I were shouting to the wind, or reciting the Declaration of
Independence to the blind, deaf, and mute.
In one of
the more ludicrous episodes of Star Trek, the Enterprise encounters a society
that worships physical fitness – and plants. All the inhabitants on this planet
are in top shape. When one of the crewmen plays catch with the natives, he
falls into a patch of flowers. He is condemned to death for violating, presumably,
the society’s “do not harm the flowers” law. The captain feels honor bound to
“respect” the law; I don’t recall the resolution, but he somehow rescues
the crewman, who is not put into a pot and cooked. In the U.K. if you don’t
“respect” Islam, you will not be cooked, but rather thrown to the lions (or
Muslims) under British Sharia.
In another
episode, the Enterprise encounters  a society
that is the remnant of a collapsed society (I forget whether or not war was the
cause) that understood freedom. At the end of the episode, the primitives, in
some ritual, bring out a tattered U.S. 
flag, which they worship. The captain somehow conveys to the primitives
that the flag is just a symbol and that they’re missing the point. Not exactly
adhering to the Prime Directive.
In an
episode that is more in line with the series’ left wing theme, Dr. Beverly
, the chief medical officer of the ship, is having an affair with a
humanoid alien. The alien dies, but it is learned that it was just a host for
the actual alien, which is put in stasis until a replacement host is sent. The
actual alien looks more like an overcooked slab of liver. The replacement host,
presumably female, shows up and expresses a preference for women . Dr. Crusher
declines the chance to renew her affair with the alien, humbly saying, more or
less, “We haven’t progressed that far yet.” 
Progressed to what? The chance to
cuddle with an extra large portion of liver pāté? In the few decades since
that episode, we have certainly “progressed” to the point where we are told that we
can be any gender we wish.
A post script: As an atheist, God means
as little to me as does Allah. It has been that way for me since the age of 15,
when I concluded, without having ever having heard of the most notable
atheists, that God was a metaphysical impossibility, a chimera, and a moral
abomination. At that age, Allah was a mystical concept I had yet to hear of.
Both concepts are connected to the notion of a “first cause.” God is alleged to
have conceived of and created the universe, while Islam makes the claim that it
was Allah who worked the cosmological magic, or just snapped his fingers. 
course, the notion of a “first cause” denies the fact that existence exists and
always has existed. There was no Divine Author. Existence, to Christians, Muslims, and
others, must have come from somewhere; or it was God’s mental construct, and it
popped out of his head like a Yorkshire Pudding out of an oven.The rationalism
of religion requires a first cause. Otherwise deities make no sense.Come again?

In the U.K., you must
grant the fantasy “respect,” or else.