I think one of the most astounding, arguably dense articles to be published anywhere on the issue of censorship vs. freedom of speech was published in one of the most unlikely quarters of the world, New Zealand. A correspondent sent me the text and link to an article titled: “Want equality? Curtail free speech.” It was written for “Stuff” by a fellow by the name of Jacob Van De Visser. “Stuff” was described by the correspondent, Lindsay Perigo, as IslmoMarxist.
A New Zealand kiwi’s
impersonation of a golden eagle.
Freedom of Speech? Stuff and nonsense! It’s a short article, so, instead of beginning with my own comments, I’ve reproduced the article here so you can guffaw or be astonished as you will. Mr. Perigo, in his own remarks, wondered if the piece was tongue-in-cheek satire because it is so blatantly irrational and hostile to freedom of speech
I’m not certain of its sincerity, either, but given the avalanche of anti-speech articles and the ubiquity of actions that have taken place before and after Donald Trump’s election (see the Gatestone column here about American campuses opposing or shutting down speech, except that which doesn’t violate student “safe spaces”) in November 2016, together with the tone and content of Stuff’s other articles, it is wholly consistent with the irrationality of what is occurring in the West.
The Stuff article begins here.
The Stuff article begins here.
It's time for New Zealand to criminalize Islamophobia!
On March 23, New Zealand awoke to the horrific news of yet another terrorist attack, this time in London.
A deranged individual ploughed a car into innocent pedestrians and brutally stabbed a police officer to death before being shot. Five people died, including the attacker. [Italics mine]
The Twittersphere was soon abuzz with conjecture and accusation. Who was to blame? What were the motives?
I felt sick as I read comments saying “Islam is to blame” and “it must be another Muslim”.
The fact that the attacker was a Muslim is irrelevant. The issue is that Islamophobia was the first response.
If you are a Muslim, you continually have to defend your faith against people who accuse it of being a dangerous and violent set of ideas. Islam is the religion of peace; anyone who understands this knows it has no part in the ideology of ISIS.
Life is a constant fight for other minorities, too.
If you are a member of the LGBTQAA+ community, you must battle for your rights. You are forced to choose from just two bathroom choices when often you don’t fit either. Workplaces often fail to be inclusive to this community, refusing them places in the boardroom.
If you are a woman, trans or otherwise, there is no escape from rape culture. On any given day you might hear a rape joke, or be given a “compliment” such as being asked for your number by a stranger. The men who make these comments defend them as harmless, but unwanted harassment can trigger harmful flashbacks to previous similar incidents or experiences of sexual assault.
The misogynistic, homophobic, transphobic, Islamophobic hate speech directed at oppressed groups is damaging to society - and with the rise of Donald Trump’s brand of politics, it is also being legitimised.
So, what does this have to do with free speech? And how might things change for the better?
Well, there is some hope. The Canadian parliament has passed the M-103 motion, which calls on the government to condemn Islamophobia. It is the silver lining of a dark and depressing cloud, and it is something I think New Zealand should seek to not only emulate but improve.
Our Government should look to criminalise not only Islamophobia, but racist rhetoric and the criticism of feminism and LGBTQAA+ rights.
Free speech is all well and good, but it should not be defended at the expense of minority groups.
Nothing quells fear and hatred like making it illegal, and if we stop opposing progressive values then surely the constant fighting will stop too.
New Zealand is not a place of tolerance at the moment, but I believe if we curtail free speech, we will be on the path to a fairer future.
The Stuff article ends here.
The Stuff article ends here.
No hablar Kiwi, dice el gamberro M13.¿Quieres drogas? ¡Soy tu hombre!
“We must censor freedom of speech in order to protect it.” Or:”We must censor the Internet in order to protect it.” This is George Soros-Speak; in order to create an “open society,” which would be closed to anyone who values his freedom of speech and freedom, certain types of speech must suppressed, banned, or punished. In 2011,
Hillary Clinton’s prescription for suppressing “offensive” or “hate” speech would be to “shame” it if not outright obliterate the First Amendment. Mr. Van De Visser’s Stuff article, in language and in tone, could well have been written while he snorted up his sleeve, but it could as well have been a paper submitted for discussion by The Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR), an office within the OSCE (The Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) that claims to be dedicated to democratic elections, respect for human rights, rule of law, tolerance, and non-discrimination.
M13 gangsters react to freedom of speech.Or are they Maori copycatting M13 criminals?
Their stated overall objective is helping governments protect and promote human rights, fundamental freedoms and tolerance and non-discrimination, as well as to improve and strengthen democratic practices and institutions. Except that the actual theme of the two-day proceedings had a lot more to do with countering ‘hate crime,’ criminalizing ‘hate speech,’ and demonizing ‘Islamophobia’ and ‘Islamophobes’ than it did with genuinely championing the right to believe, live, and speak freely.
I'll let Mr. Perigo have the nearly last word:
Good that the real fascists are coming out of the closet. Having been shrieked down by hysterical Muslims at Auckland University last year I know just what a menace to free speech they and their fellow-travellers are. At least the writer of this piece, assuming it isn't a satire on Political Correctness, is honest.
Anymore, it’s difficult to distinguish between satirical writing and serious polemics.