The Slow Death Of Free Speech

[silverfaun]

A scroller but intensely interesting to anybody who cares about our rights and freedom.

How the Left, here and abroad, is trying to shut down debate —  from Islam and Israel to global warming and gay marriage

April 2014

These days, pretty much every story is really the same story:

• In Galway, at the National University of Ireland, a speaker who attempts to argue against the BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions) programme against Israel is shouted down with cries of  effing Zionist, effing  pr…..… Get the eff  off our campus.’

• In California, Mozilla’s chief executive is forced to resign because he once made a political donation in support of the pre-revisionist definition of marriage.

• At Westminster, the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee declares that the BBC should seek ‘special clearance’ before it interviews climate sceptics, such as fringe wacko extremists like former Chancellor Nigel Lawson.

• In Massachusetts, Brandeis University withdraws its offer of an honorary degree to a black feminist atheist human rights campaigner from Somalia.

• In London, a multitude of liberal journalists and artists responsible for everything from Monty Python to Downton Abbey sign an open letter in favour of the first state restraints on the British press in three and a quarter centuries.

• And in Canberra the government is planning to repeal Section 18C — whoa, don’t worry, not all of it, just three or four adjectives; or maybe only two, or whatever it’s down to by now, after what Gay Alcorn in the Age described as the ongoing debate about ‘where to strike the balance between free speech in a democracy and protection against racial abuse in a multicultural society’

http://www.spectator.co.uk/australia/australia-features/9187741/the-slow-death-of-free-speech-2/?

[icyfroth]

---

@freakiness wrote:

---

@icyfroth wrote:

---

I don't need you to red text all my comments like some old school marking.

The question went to Martini's comment and the response, as copied.

What we don't have (and rightly so) is freedom to racially vilify and incite race hatred.

---

It seems we do:

Why would the police investigate if nothing was done wrong?  

Yes, Martini provided an answer so there was probably no need for your little rant with red.

---

So you think there was nothing wrong with Imam Sharif Hussein's little rant?

[silverfaun]

---

@icyfroth wrote:

---

@freakiness wrote:

---

@icyfroth wrote:

---

I don't need you to red text all my comments like some old school marking.

The question went to Martini's comment and the response, as copied.

What we don't have (and rightly so) is freedom to racially vilify and incite race hatred.

---

It seems we do:

Why would the police investigate if nothing was done wrong?  

Yes, Martini provided an answer so there was probably no need for your little rant with red.

---

So you think there was nothing wrong with Imam Sharif Hussein's little rant?

---

I agree icyfroth, what is it with this dissecting of anothers post and inserting their own thoughts into your post.

If they haven't got the nous to construct their own argument then they shouldn't be on here imo.

[icyfroth]

no they should go find a boardroom somewhere.

[silverfaun]

Or they could address the topic rather than attack anothers post.

[i-need-a-martini]

---

@icyfroth wrote:

---

@i-need-a-martini wrote:

---

@icyfroth wrote:

---

You're telling the story.  "It seems we do"

What has happened since the story was published? Was he arrested? Is he still in the country?

Surely the case has progressed since August last year.

---

Apparently not. Or not that's been published. Why do you think that is?

---

Because no one took action.

Bernardi complained to the media, and then the police investigated. But until someone who was named (ie. one of the armed forces or Howard) takes action, then the police aren't able to charge him. Unless he carries out on threats or unless someone else does on his behalf.

The act is enforced when action is taken from a victims perspective.

---

Thank you martini, that's exactly right. Aussies didn't get outraged enough that's why. We have freedom of speech don't you know.

Now imagine if the situation had've been reversed and an Aussie religious leader had've got up on a pulpit and called for death to Jews Buddhists and Hindus, and called muslim soldiers rude names.

Now that would've been racial villification and hate speech and against the law and the outrage would've been enormous.

---

You have a short memory icy - there WAS outrage. The incident was in all the papers, Muslim community groups came out against this man, there was large debate in parliament about it. Plus of course the usual terrorist=Islam reports.

I imagine there would be the same outrage if this was a Christian religious leader. And there have been a few cases in the last decade when this has been the case.

But in both cases, unless someone takes out an action against the opinions, then it fails to go to court.

To imply that there is a difference in law depending on the religion is incorrect.

[i-need-a-martini]

---

@tall_bearded wrote:

I would have thought this is a perfect example underlining benefits of freedom of speech.

These people exist.   They are real, and can pose a significant danger.  But first you have to recognise them for what they are.

First scenario, it is a criminal offence to sprout this kind of garbage in a public forum.  Does it mean the hate goes away?  Does it mean the attitudes or beliefs that underpin iit have gone away.  Does it mean this person has been stopped from finding others who are like minded?  The answer to all of the before mentioned is an emphatic NO.  The hate still exists.  All that has happened is that it has been driven underground.  Out of sight, therefore blissfully out of harms way.  That is until the next plane is flown into the next building.

No let’s take the alternative view.  Though one finds the man and his beliefs somewhat distasteful to use a neutral term, he is free to sprout whatever garbage he likes.  Now he’s out in the open, he, and those who support him are recognisable for what they are.  Most importantly, we know who they are, and, as such we can guard ourselves against them, if words subsequently turn to action.

---

I won't even bother addressing some of the hysteria scenarios. But given the gist of your argument, does the same apply to Bolt and his racial bias?

[silverfaun]

Calling Bolt a racist is totally untrue and calling up the race card when your argument is not holding water is a bit like the Godwin effect.

Bolt is the bete noir of the left so conjure up a whipping boy if that props up your argument.

 There is not one public figure, journalist, Aboriginal or any other commentator who say he is a racist so here we have a perfect example of freedom of speech and thought but exposure to what you really think.

[spotweldersfriend]

He chooses his words well.I wouldn't say hides,but thinly veils.

[freakiness]

---

@spotweldersfriend wrote:
He chooses his words well.I wouldn't say hides,but thinly veils.

---

Thinly veils and encourages racist anger in others.

If he's not racist himself is it not worse to encourage it in others as some weird form of entertainment?

[silverfaun]

Apportioning the racist tag just because you think he may be thinly disguising racist views??

Be honest, you don't like him because he is a conservative commentator, I have never heard or read a racist slant or thinly disguised racist comment from him so if you want to play the racist card post links to any racist utterances he has made.

Playing the racist card to, shut down people and serious debate, is used generously by the left commentators, see Tony Jones, he's very fond of the racist card, he sat there whilst the most disgusting racist rant from Langton was played out, he agreed and allowed it to continue.