Apr 17, 2021

The Kill the Bill Achilles’ Heel

Rachel Allen

The Kill the Bill movement has recently emerged in the UK in response to a proposed piece of legislation called the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill. The bill seeks to amend aspects of the Public Order Act 1986 relating to protest, adding more powers to that Act for the police to impose restrictions on protests for noise reasons, for example. In response, protests have taken place at the end of March and the beginning of April against this bill.

In itself, opposition to this bill is a positive thing, as it does seek to reduce democratic rights. However, there is a contradiction at the heart of the Kill the Bill movement: opposition to this draconian police state bill alongside support for the Official Covid Narrative, lockdowns, and other biosecurity state policies that stem from belief in this narrative.

Footage and Speeches

In order to analyse this issue, I have examined footage taken during the protests and the points raised by the speakers. It is clear from this evidence that the Kill the Bill protests – as a whole – endorse the Official Covid Narrative. This narrative can be defined as the belief that Sars-Cov-2 is uniquely dangerous to human life and that extreme responses such as lockdowns and mandatory masks are necessary to avoid mass death.

The first indication of this is the high level of compliance with mask-wearing, which can be seen in images of these protests. The organisers of Kill the Bill events in Cornwall explicitly advised attendees to wear masks, telling the Canary:

Wear masks, bring hand sanitiser, remember social distancing and let’s send a clear message that Cornwall is not going to stop taking to the streets until this bill is defeated.

An examination of the speeches made at the large London event on the 3^rd April provides further evidence of strong narrative compliance.

Before the march takes place, the host of the event is keen to stress the importance of social distancing, even leading a chant about it: “When I say Social Distance, you say Social Distance.”

After the march, there are more speeches. Peter Tatchell, a gay rights activist who has repeatedly been criticised for his statements relating to pedophilia, states that “[This bill] is the most draconian threat to civil liberties in a generation.”

This statement effectively erases from existence the already passed Coronavirus Act 2020, an act which gives the government power to postpone elections, forcibly remove ‘potentially infectious persons’ for screening, prohibit ‘gatherings’ and close premises, and an increase in state sectioning powers.

After Tatchell has finished speaking, the crowd is asked whether they love the NHS, and whether they believe that nurses and doctors should have had a higher pay rise than they were given. A few minutes later, after another speaker, a nurse is then invited onto the stage – the crowd is invited to show their appreciation for this individual – and she proceeds to talk about a lack of support from the Tory government during the alleged pandemic.

The ‘hero doctors and nurses’ is a key plank of the ‘pandemic’ narrative that is clearly being used by the organisers of these protests – in the same way it was used by the government with their ‘Clap for the NHS’ propaganda initiative.

Another speech from a trade union activist does refer to possible prosecutions under the Coronavirus Act, and even implies some of these may be unfair. However, his main purpose in introducing the Coronavirus Act here is to introduce the idea of hypocrisy on the part of the government, in particular, that they fail to address the issue of ‘unsafe workplaces’. He then goes on to affirm the government’s Covid statistics (despite the significant problems with the definition of a ‘Covid death’) and advocating lockdowns (complaining about people being “forced into work”).

A Tale of Two Corbyns

We can further examine this issue by looking at the most high-profile speaker at the London event, former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn.

During his speech, Corbyn draws attention to the Tory government’s authoritarianism by invoking the different bills they are trying to pass, such as the Spy Cops bill and the Overseas Operations Bill.

He does not mention here the most draconian Tory move, the passing of the Coronavirus Act 2020, which Corbyn enabled as Labour leader (the bill originally passed without a vote). He only mentions this after about ten minutes of talking, stating that he voted against the March 2021 renewal of powers contained in this Act.

However, he is sure to affirm the Official Covid Narrative, making sure to stress that “[Covid-19 is] serious, it’s real and it’s dangerous,” but follows by saying “but you don’t have to empower the police on the back of that legislation.”

Of course, Corbyn is maintaining a completely contradictory position. He supports lockdown policies, and the only way of actually enforcing such policies are through ‘empowering the police’. Corbyn openly stated on the 24^th March 2020, that:

This [lockdown] is the right response to the coronavirus pandemic, and one we have been calling for.”

His criticisms of Tory policy when to comes to the alleged pandemic amount to objections such as claiming that the Tory government did not lock down early enough, in other words calling for increased authoritarianism.

Rather than criticising the horrific impact of lockdowns on the working class, such as job and income losses and impacts on mental wellbeing, he simply argued for more handouts from the government. He has also offered zero criticism of the official narrative, despite the myriad holes and contradictions that have been demonstrated to exist by independent journalists.

We can compare this to his brother, Piers Corbyn, who has been a strong voice criticising government propaganda and protesting government tyranny. He has spoken at several events across the UK, including the large anti-lockdown protests in London as well as events in Birmingham and Bristol. He has been arrested multiple times, for example, for attending an event at Speakers’ Corner in Hyde Park.

Incidentally, Jeremy Corbyn has not spoken out about his brother’s multiple arrests. Searching his Twitter account for ‘piers’ he has not mentioned his brother’s name since 2012. Searching for the word ‘brother’ does not bring up any more recent results.

By opposing the Official Covid Narrative, Piers Corbyn has put his opposition to excessive police powers and government authoritarianism on a strong and consistent foundation. Jeremy Corbyn, on the other hand, wants to have his cake and eat it – to project the image of opposing tyranny while enabling it.

Conclusion

There is a contradiction at the heart of the ‘Kill the Bill’ movement. Their alleged raison d’etre is to oppose excessive police powers, but the organisers and speakers show little to no awareness of the biosecurity state tyranny being introduced under the guise of ‘fighting Covid’.

In fact, the evidence shows that they support the official narrative and the policy consequences such as lockdowns, even though these measures enable and require excessive police powers.

Focusing entirely on this one bill is a distraction that precludes a true recognition of the biosecurity state being foisted on us through lockdowns, mandatory masks, social distancing and vaccine passports.