The Role of Global Agendas: Fueling Division and Silencing Dissent

The Incarceration of Tommy Robinson: A Warning to Critics

The changing landscape of global governance is increasingly difficult to ignore, as actions taken in the UK reveal a deep-seated transformation in its judicial and political framework, threatening fundamental freedoms. The case of Tommy Robinson, a polarizing figure and outspoken critic, highlights a concerning shift from the principles of free speech, equality under the law, and public accountability… values once revered as pillars of British society and admired by the Commonwealth.

Growing up, many of us were taught to hold the UK, its Monarch, and its institutions in high regard. We sang God Save the Queen each morning in school, pledging allegiance to the Crown and admiring a nation that represented justice, freedom, and a voice for the people. However, recent developments challenge this narrative, revealing a society where dissent is met with punitive action, and justice no longer seems impartial. Yesterday’s news serves as a chilling reminder of how quickly long-cherished rights can erode.

Tommy Robinson’s Sentence: An Example of Controlled Narrative

Tommy Robinson’s sentence to Belmarsh prison for civil contempt is unprecedented in the way it targets his public dissent. Robinson’s documentary, “Silenced,” shines a light on issues the government and media would rather obscure, including the troubling case involving Jamal Hijazi and broader issues of public safety, cultural integration, and crime. Robinson’s actions expose systemic issues within the justice system and challenge the portrayal of events that government bodies and mainstream media carefully control. His imprisonment in a high-security facility typically reserved for violent criminals is telling; it is an attempt to make an example out of him, warning other citizens to stay silent. Of course it is for his own safety that he is held in solitary confinement…WTF. One must ask why this prison, the very one that is literally run my Islamic extremists. Watch the documentary and you will understand my question, https://rumble.com/v5abih6-tommy-robinson.-britains-banned-documentary-silenced.html

Robinson’s solitary confinement mirrors the psychological suppression seen in authoritarian regimes. This harsh punishment for a documentary deemed “contempt” reveals a larger truth: that the UK government, influenced by UN and WEF “anti-hate” and “anti-racism” frameworks, is prioritizing political conformity over citizens' rights to criticize policy and public safety issues.

Is Government the Ultimate Arbiter of Truth?

A key argument from Robinson’s legal team, led by barrister Sasha Wass, KC, emphasized that his actions did not include perjury, self-gain, or any deceptive intent. Instead, he merely reported findings, making his sentencing even more shocking. This case signals that in the UK, the government now positions itself as the final arbiter of “fact.” When public discourse is deemed subversive by those in power, the punishment is swift and severe, discouraging citizens from questioning authority. A justice system that enforces punitive measures against those who speak out risks creating a society where truth becomes whatever aligns with governmental or mainstream consensus… an alarming reality in a supposed democracy.

The UN and WEF Agenda: Enforcing Compliance Through “Anti-Hate” and “Safety” Policies

Institutions like the UN and WEF continually push anti-hate and anti-discrimination policies that superficially aim to foster social harmony. However, these policies are really used to criminalize dissent and protect governmental and institutional narratives from scrutiny. The UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and UNESCO programs push for “social harmony” and “inclusivity” under frameworks that make criticism of immigration policy, integration issues, gender issues or cultural conflicts etc.  off-limits.

Countries that sign onto these agendas,  including Canada and the UK are encouraged by the UN to adopt legislation that reflects these values, effectively implementing a system where criticizing certain groups or questioning policy decisions can be categorized as “hate speech.” Robinson’s sentencing is a striking example of how these frameworks create an environment where government-defined narratives become the only acceptable truth. It’s a warning to dissenters that any deviation will not only be censored but may also result in severe legal consequences.

Does ESG Criteria and Controlled Information make Corporations the Enforcers of the Agenda?

Seems like that would be a YES…The UK has recently expanded its environmental, social, and governance (ESG) reporting requirements under the "Sustainability Disclosure Requirements" (SDRs) framework, effective as of 2023. This enhanced ESG reporting aims to enforce transparency but places pressure on companies to align business practices with sustainability standards, affecting their ESG scores. This framework, backed by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), puts corporations under intense scrutiny by requiring both internal and public disclosures that impact their financial credibility and potentially their market viability.

The obligation for compliance, enforced with such rigor, can lead companies to prioritize ESG scores potentially at the expense of objective truth, as seen in cases where controversial figures or dissident views challenge dominant social narratives. This type of reporting structure underscores the influence of global agendas like those by the United Nations and other global entities, where adherence to specific values becomes increasingly mandatory for private and public sectors alike, impacting decision-making and public accountability.

These requirements reflect broader global pressures for uniformity on ESG standards, aligning with initiatives that many see as stemming from international bodies with significant influence, such as the UN and the World Economic Forum.

So absolutely Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) criteria play a role in this agenda. Corporations and media platforms that adhere to ESG standards prioritize content that aligns with globalist values while penalizing dissenting viewpoints. For example, Robinson was banned from most major platforms, effectively stripping him of his ability to publicly defend himself. This aligns with the WEF and UN’s focus on “combatting disinformation” through digital platforms, labeling certain viewpoints as harmful or extremist while preserving their own curated versions of truth.

ESG mandates ensure that companies promote specific narratives and restrict speech that might contradict or challenge them. As a result, social media platforms are increasingly becoming enforcers of a globally agreed-upon ideology, with policies influenced by global organizations, not democratic processes. The outcome is clear: figures like Robinson become persona non grata, silenced online and criminalized offline, with little chance to present their side of the story.With ESG scores increasingly affecting a company’s reputation, access to funding, and even its viability in the marketplace, there is a strong incentive for businesses to comply with the dominant social and political narratives — even if it means overlooking or distorting the truth. Companies prioritizing their ESG ratings may avoid associating with controversial figures or issues, regardless of the merits or truth behind their stories. This fear of losing “social” credibility or investor backing can lead them to ignore injustices, turn a blind eye to important stories, or even openly side with narratives that align with global agendas.

In Tommy’s case, the lack of coverage or the biased representation of his story across mainstream media shows how this pressure can manifest. Media outlets and corporations may distance themselves from anything that could harm their standing within this ESG framework, preferring a safer narrative over one that challenges government or cultural policies… regardless of the evidence Tommy presented. His documentary, which exposes the unreported side of issues like the UK’s two-tiered justice system and the protection of specific political agendas, risks being labeled as “divisive” or “extremist” under ESG's vague social criteria. This system discourages businesses from engaging with stories like Tommy’s, reinforcing the official narrative by design, and stifling independent, critical voices.

Does the Legislation in Canada: Bill C-63 and C-293 act as a Canadian Parallel?

You bet it does… The push for controlling narratives extends beyond the UK. In Canada, bills like C-63 and C-293 introduce similar risks to freedom of speech and expression. Bill C-293, for instance, could pave the way for policies influenced by global “sustainability” and “anti-hate” agendas, creating an environment where the government can suppress any narrative it deems “contrary to public safety” or “against global priorities.” By restricting freedom of speech in the name of public order, these bills essentially copy what is happening in the UK.

Under these bills, criticisms of immigration policies, or even discussions about cultural differences and integration, could be restricted in the name of “hate speech.” This parallels the UN’s Agenda 2030 objectives, where political alignment with global goals takes precedence over national sovereignty and citizen rights. The end result? A commonwealth country inching closer to the kind of restrictive legal framework that has led to Robinson’s incarceration.

Is The Broader Goal - Centralized Control of Narrative and Citizen Compliance?

The Robinson case, alongside these restrictive legislative trends, illustrates a pattern: the move toward centralizing control over public discourse. Global institutions like the UN and WEF are creating frameworks that allow governments to label any dissent against their agendas as “hate speech” or “public safety concerns,” legitimizing punitive actions against citizens who challenge their policies.

At its core, this approach relies on manufactured social division, using concepts like anti-racism and anti-hate to justify censoring anyone who challenges the narrative. This isn’t about preventing genuine discrimination or hate… it’s about creating a controlled, compliant society where controversial truths remain buried, and dissenters are silenced under the weight of public condemnation or legal repercussion.

This Is A Call for Sovereignty and Free Speech…are you waking up?

Robinson’s sentencing and Canada’s adoption of restrictive legislation highlight a critical need for nations to re-evaluate their relationship with global institutions. The push for UN and WEF-aligned laws that restrict speech should be seen for what it is: an attempt to create a New World Order where compliance is prioritized over freedom, and challenging the status quo becomes not just discouraged but criminalized.

If the trend continues, cases like Robinson’s won’t be exceptions but the norm in countries under the influence of UN mandates. To prevent this, citizens must demand sovereignty over their laws, protect their right to free speech, and resist the silent encroachment of global governance that seeks to control narratives and criminalize dissent. 

A sovereign, free society cannot be achieved by surrendering to centralized global mandates that prioritize ideological conformity over individual rights.

Now is the time to take a stand, not just for Tommy Robinson, but for the fundamental freedoms of speech and dissent that are under siege. Tommy’s case highlights the urgent need to protect these rights from the chokehold of global agendas that threaten to strip us of our voice. We must rise against the creeping authoritarianism that aims to silence citizens across the world, joining hands to resist this oppressive tide. Join the 10 Million Patriot Challenge and show that we will not be subdued, silenced, or sidelined. 

Stand with Tommy, stand for truth, and defend the values that are the backbone of a free society. Together, let’s send a clear message: we will not back down

.

If you live in the United States please go to preventgenocide2030.org and take the 10 million patriot challenge The US Congress must pass the Disengaging Entirely From the UN Debacle Act of 2023 (HR: 6645/ S:3428) by a supermajority to prevent the utter destruction of every aspect of personal and national autonomy and sovereignty by the UN Death Machine. Continued membership in the globalists “country club” (aka the “United Nations”) assures the destruction of everything we value as human beings.

If you live in Canada go to StopC-293.ca and first learn what bill C-293 is and then take action, one click and you send your letter to the Senators. When enough people flood their mailboxes, leave them messages etc. THEY HAVE TO PAY ATTENTION.

Please watch and share Tommy’s Documentary, he literally went to jail so you can see it:

https://rumble.com/v5abih6-tommy-robinson.-britains-banned-documentary-silenced.html