Mob Rule on Campus

This is really what it is like, folks.

"True-blue conservatives have no trouble arresting neo-Nazis who threaten violence, but lib-left peace-mongers find it hard to arrest neo-Red Guards."

"It's simpler to silence protested speakers. No wonder the left's book burners are emboldened. When they riot, their opponents are read the riot act.

"Fertilized by the warm manure of left-wing culture, flowers of hideous hues bloom in the groves of academia, from anarcho-terrorist black to eco-fascist and Islamist green, while helpless taxpayers and hoodwinked philanthropists fork over fortunes to the gardeners."

zombie: The New Free Speech Movement

I am loving this article.

Sharpening my Laurentians right now....

The Left's War on Free Speech

I really enjoy the American Thinker blog. There are always lots of great articles, and much food for thought.

This is a good one: The Left's War on Free Speech.

It's not necessarily new territory, just nicely phrased.

"The left is utterly wedded to thought control. Like all sibling totalitarianisms, the left in America is addicted to power and repelled by truth. The creation of officially defined oppressors and officially defined victims determines who has rights and who does not."

"The totalitarian narcotic of "Social Justice," the drug of choice for Hitler, Stalin, Father Coughlin, and Sir Oswald Moseley, dulls the people into a twilight land in which "Freedom is Slavery" and free speech too. "

This Guy Gets It

"Freedom of speech must be defended, even for homophobes,"

That's the whole thing in a nutshell. I might hate you, and what you think, but your right to say it has to be defended.

Those who control speech, control minds and eventually bodies.

Don't you wish more people understood the following principle:

"Although I disagree with Dale McAlpine and support protests against his homophobic views, he should not have been arrested and charged," said Tatchell. "Criminalization is a step too far. Despite my opposition to his opinions, I defend his right to freedom of expression."

A Gay Activist Who Gets Free Speech

This is a refreshing approach.

It goes to show that there are a lot of people who really do 'get it' when it comes to free speech.

Free speech is about having to hear-not agree-with the people whose ideas you find insulting, repugnant and offensive.

Any kind of artificial "shelter" from free speech is an intrusion on personal freedom.

Where free speech ventures into actual threats-the law takes over.

Where free speech creeps toward libel or slander, there are provisions in the law.

The entire "free speech" debate has evolved into a crusade to have difference of opinions criminalized in supposedly civilized nations.

Some of us know where those enlightened paths led us throughout history.

It simply should not be impossible to have a political, or religious disagreement in a "civilized" Western country without fear of political persecution and financial ruin.

Very Important Story: Free Speech "Loophole" Threatens American Writers

Read it all, a very important piece by Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld, who is at the centre of the "Rachel's Law" legislative efforts.

She was hounded by the Saudis in expensive lawfare cases on two different continents because of her work exposing Saudi dirty money trails.

Free Speech Chill-O-Rama From Australia

Wow. Just read about this story from Australia.

It seems as there are plans to completely outlaw anonymity on the intertooobies.

"A new law has come into effect in South Australia. The law, according to the Adelaide Advertiser, "requires internet bloggers, and anyone making a comment on next month's state election, to publish their real name and postcode when commenting on the poll." It effectively prevents anonymous comments on politics on the Internet."

The law "also requires media organisations to keep a person's real name and full address on file for six months, and they face fines of $5000 if they do not hand over this information to the Electoral Commissioner."

This seems pretty heavy handed to me. I haven't read much about this law anywhere else-could it be that they are just ramming it through, without debate? Or could it be that Australians are behaving like Canadian sheeples, just blindly nodding and smiling as their rights are stripped away in incremental, almost imperceptible little Trudeaupian steps?

I wouldn't be surprised if the Canadian Human Rights Monstrosity Bureaucracy got inspired by Oz.

Here's a warning though from Down Under. Read it well:

"Intellectual coercion is a second cousin of physical coercion. Once you concede the principle that the government can censor what you say...well...you've conceded an awful lot."

AMEN to that. And that is why we all have to resist any governmental, and "well-intentioned" non-governmental attempts to censor our thoughts and our speech. For every action, there must be a more forceful reaction, until THEY are crushed.

So carry on, offend on, git yer hate on...

The Death of Free Speech in Eurabia

"A Dutch court on Wednesday dismissed a challenge by far-right lawmaker Geert Wilders against his pending prosecution for inciting hatred against Muslims."

This is really creepy stuff. First of all, Islam is not a race-as far as I know, people from all different backgrounds and colours (ie: "races") are welcome into the fold as 'reverts'. So calling this 'racism' is just preposterous, and another example of how language has been corrupted by the Left to serve in a totalitarian fashion-as a tool to prosecute people for their thoughts, and not actually for their actions.

But read the actual charges:

"The indictment charges Wilders with insulting Muslims by describing Islam as a fascist religion and calling for the banning of the Koran, which he likens to Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf"

He is also accused of inciting hatred and discrimination for stating Moroccan youths were violent, calling for the Koran to be banned and for Dutch borders to be closed to all "non-western immigrants", as well as for advocating an end to what he terms "the Islamic invasion".

Wilders, 46, faces up to one year in jail if convicted.

I thought Europe consisted of democracies?

Read it again-there are criminal charges pending against a politician-a public figure (although certainly private citizens are not exempt from these trumped up Orwellian charges) for the following:

-'insulting' something/someone

-calling for a ban on something

-allegedly 'discriminating' against something by stating an opinion and by wanting to ban a book and have tighter border controls

These charges are absolutely terrifying.

Nobody in North America should ignore this story. Even if you don't agree with Wilders-you have to realize that the speech being censored next could be yours. You could face jail time too, just for having an opinion about something.

Good News: Irish Blasphemy Laws Now In Effect

I remember reading about it last year when it was in the planning stages, but now it's officially on the books.

Buh-bye, freedom of speech.

Canadian Jewish Congress and B'nai B'rith Suddenly, Strangely Not Concerned About Al Jazeerah

Official Jews do about face on Al Jazeerah?

"Bernie Farber, CEO of the Canadian Jewish Congress, said in an interview that neither his organization or B'nai Brith Canada opposed the Al Jazeera English application, in part because of Burman's assurances to leaders of Canadian's Jewish community earlier this year that a liaison committee would be formed to respond quickly to any concerns raised about content on the network. Farber noted that Al Jazeera Arabic "continues to this very day to broadcast some very, very problematic programs that would never see the light of day here in Canada because of CRTC regulations."

"Much of what I've seen of Al Jazeera English is not a problem. As a matter of fact, their real concentration, interestingly enough, has been on the north-south divide as opposed to the Middle East. That's good. I think that's the kind of work they should do because it's an area that is not focused on here in North America and good for them for doing that," Farber added.

So, the Jews get to sit on an Al Jazeerah content committee and all of the sudden they are free speechers, on behalf of Al Jazeerah? Can anyone follow the logic here?

Did they get teh Seeeekrit Salaam Shalom Samosa Recipe?

In Which Google Redeems Itself Partially In My Eyes

Remarkable that Google is taking the side of free speech-check out the little caveat in the screen capture 'sometimes our images are offensive, we know that'...

Great News: Muslim Countries Seeking Blasphemy Ban

Hey-what could possibly go wrong?

"Four years after cartoons of the prophet Muhammad set off violent protests across the Muslim world, Islamic nations are mounting a campaign for an international treaty to protect religious symbols and beliefs from mockery — essentially a ban on blasphemy that would put them on a collision course with free speech laws in the West."

"In a telephone interview Wednesday, the Ad Hoc Committee's chairman, Algerian Ambassador Idriss Jazairy, said concerns the treaty could stifle free speech have been "whipped up into a bugaboo."

"Failure to agree on a treaty would boost extremists in the Arab world, said Jazairy, a former envoy to Washington now considered a key player in the U.N.'s human rights forum. "If we keep hitting this glass wall and say there's nothing you can do about Islamophobia — you can do something about anti-Semitism but Islamophobia is out of bounds — you give an ideal platform for recruitment of suicide bombers," he said.

Let me translate that for you...from Muslim weasel speak to English: Pass this sucker at the UN, or we'll start suicide bombing you wherever you are in the West.

The Real Price of Free Speech

This is an excellent example of the real price of free speech.

Free speech means you are willing to have every two-bit disgusting, hateful, anti-Western (or Holocaust denier) nutcase spew their garbage in public and in print, up to the point where they directly incite or encourage violence, libel or threaten someone.

It means that this "imam" in Australia has a right to send vile letters to the mourning soldier's because he is a citizen, and no matter how offensive the content-that he cannot and should not be stopped unless he is breaking the law-perhaps venturing into stalking territory.

And it means that if you don't want to hear voices like his, in your downtown square, or in your own mailbox with a local postage stamp, you better damn well figure out a way to keep him and his kind out of your country.

Sacrificing Free Speech Won't Appease the Fanatics

Fine words, well worth reading this Sunday morning.

This is the basic point that people don't get. The war we are in is not about free speech specifically, although it is an important element of the war. We are in a new kind of war, civilized society facing the barbarians-the forces and history of Judeo-Christian society against the anti-women, anti-kufar, anti-Englightenment forces of Islam.

And, yes-I've used the word Islam because I also am not crazy about the mealy-mouthed use of "Islamist". I mean really, what is that supposed to mean. We never said "Nazist", not ever.

There is absolutely nothing that will appease the forces of Jihad, so our response must be equally absolute. We will not surrender to you, not ever.

"To take a position in favor of suppressing speech about religions -- especially at this time in history -- is to choose to put aside one of our most important weapons against death, oppression, and tyranny,"

"Offering a 'middle ground' cedes far more ground than the Islamic countries supporting the resolution -- especially those who are host to militant Islamicists yet fail to effectively combat them -- deserve on this point."

One of our primary mistakes is to offer a "middle ground"-always trying to find the squishy, wimpy, happy medium. There are simply some things where middle ground does not exist.

It's OK to say no. No, we are not going to have separate, gender apartheid swimming hours to "accommodate" you. No, we are not going to forgo food at staff meetings during Ramadan. No, actually we are not going to stop eating pork around you because you find it offensive.

Some things are absolute. Our society is superior, our way of life the best there is. Stay away from the utopian, dhimmi "middle ground"-our enemies find this hilarious and pathetic. They ridicule our weakness and celebrate our collaboration with those who wish to kill us. They can't believe their good fortune and how stupid we are. It all reassures them that their message and their plans are superior.

Crowder: Lefty Hates Your Right To Free Speech

If you aren't reading Big Hollywood on a regular basis-you should. 

Trying to Eliminate Offensive Expression is Dangerous

I really like Karen Selick's writing in general.

She is a lawyer by training, and writes the occasional, provocative and thoughtful piece in the National Post and this op-ed is no exception.

"Those who advocate laws outlawing offensive speech demonstrate a dangerous short-sightedness. They support the construction of a huge state apparatus devoted to ferreting out and eliminating forms of expression they deem offensive. But their underlying assumption is that the machinery of state will always remain in the hands of the good guys -- people they can trust to prosecute only genuine bad guys. They never seem to learn from history that things change, sometimes suddenly and in unexpected directions.

"If the bad guys ever get into power, the last thing anyone should want them to have is a ready-made state censorship machine. The power of censorship in the hands of a tyrant is a far more fearsome evil than any number of petty bigots writing contemptible letters to newspapers."

"Fortunately, Canadians' complacency toward censorship seems to have been routed recently, thanks to the untiring efforts of a few individuals such as former magazine publisher Ezra Levant and writer Mark Steyn."

Thoughts on Free Speech

Over the past week, there has been a lot of excitement on the Free Speech Front here in Canada.

Due to family commitments, the day job, the Mom gig, etc..I am really not in a position to do as comprensive an analysis as my fellow hatemongers have done.

(Do yourselves a favour and read all the usual suspects on your own.)

I would like to add a few post-facto thoughts to the discussion.

First: if you are for free speech, you should not be afraid of anyone or any legislation. Over the past two years, common sense has turned the tide of public opinion against censorship and only the lunatic-blankie-holding fringe (I'm looking at you, Bernie, Pearl, Jennifer and he-who-shall-not-be-named) would still argue that they have the upper hand. Many of us comfortably offend people every day, and we should continue to do so. Let them run away in horror from us. Let them curl up with their utopian friends over a vegan supper, and nut-free lactose-free ice desserts. Let them be miserable together and let us continue to speak our minds. They can threaten, but we mustn't bow to their bullying.

Second: if you are for free speech, then you are not alone. The events of the past few days have demonstrated that there are many hundreds of thousands of people fighting the battle with us. We are in fabulous company and our tools are as varied as our backgrounds and nationalities. Whatever you put into this battle helps us win the war-which of course starts with free speech, but is part of a greater, existential crisis.

Third: don't let Lefty ever, and I mean EVAH control the language battle. Those who control speech eventually control minds. We have to reject every attempt by the totalitarian left to define the terms of reference. The best, latest example is how the left freaked out when Sarah Palin deftly characterized the "death panels". You must do the same thing-yank the linguistic carpet from under Lefty's feet, strip away their phony-baloney talk, the double speak and reduce it to it's essential oil: bullying, soft totalitarianism and utopian mumbo-jumbo.

To all my friends and colleagues in this battle, and in this wondrous life I salute you and say-as the great Winston Churchil would often sign off "KPO"-keep plodding on.

Update on Libel Tourism and the Case of Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld and Her Saudi Fans

This is a great update from FrontPage Magazine on the entire wave of anti-libel tourism, and free speech activism currently being led by Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld.

If you haven't read the history of Dr. Ehrenfeld and her adoring Saudi fans, you really should get up to speed. "Rachel's Law" is an important way to push back the Wahabi mafiosos that would silence free speech in the Western world

"At least 45 libel judgments in London, by Mahfouz alone, against many American writers and publishers have literally silenced American and Western media from reporting mostly on Arab/Muslim support for terrorism. The Free Speech Protection Act will remove the chilling effect of the British and other foreign libel laws from American writers, who will be able to report freely on matters critical to American national security. "

Ehrenfeld continues:

"The Free Speech Protection Act has wide support from most free speech organizations on both ends of the political spectrum. Many have petitioned the Judiciary Committee to pass the bill. The universal acknowledgment that this law is necessary and the fact that it does not have any budget attached, should motivate Congress to hold hearings and pass the Free Speech Protection Act without further delay.

"The U.S. is the only country in the world to enshrine free speech in its Constitution. Congress should see to it that we are fully protected."

Conservative Speakers in America: Whatever You Say Is Hate Speech

Coming soon to every university campus in North America... (if it's not on your local campus already)... "Most of us probably regard some speech and some speakers as so far beyond the pale of civilized discourse that there is no point in debating them, only in branding them unacceptable. But, however satisfying such a stance may be, it could be only a matter of time before the speech beyond the pale is your own"

Yelling "Fire" In A Crowded Theatre and Other Liberal Scare Tactics

Much has been said and written about Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. He was a Harvard law scholar (hey-just like Obama) and was even a soldier in the war of 1861. In 1899, he was appointed chief justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Court.

But Holmes is also probably best known for his declarations on free speech and his statement that “the most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic”. Liberals always trot out this quote to prove that there are good reasons for limiting free speech, and that the state must surely be employed to make sure crazy people don’t go yelling fire or ‘jihad’ in theatres or something like that.

Anyway, the great Mark Steyn addressed this issue yet again at the Ontario legislature earlier this month. At the post-testimony Steynette scrum, Mark reminded us about how his lawyer, Julian Porter, pointed out in his summation during the Maclean’s case that the operating word is ‘falsely’. If there is a fire burning and there is an imminent threat, one is actually obligated to yell fire and warn others. Accurate quotations from Holmes can be found in both The Mind and Faith of Justice Holmes, ed Max Lerner (Garden City, NY: Halcyon House, 1943) and several of Holmes’ Supreme Court decisions.

So, to make a long story longer, I started reading a fantastic book-the War Against the Weak: Eugenics and America’s Campaign to Create a Master Race, by Edwin Black. It’s really chilling stuff. I’m turning the pages at a furious rate, aghast at the history of the eugenics movement in America, when guess who pops up in the chapter called “The United States of Sterilization”? Right! Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.

It seems like our friend Oliver was quite a nasty bastard and quite the proponent of eugenics. Under his watch, the “feebleminded” Carrie Buck was eugenically sterilized by the state after being raped. Here are the words that concluded his opinion on the eugenic sterilization of an American citizen (see Buck v. Bell 274 U.S 200, 1927 for verbatim transcription):

“It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate off-spring, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continueing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes. Three generations of imbeciles are enough.”

All this is to say that liberals should be more aware of who they are quoting in defense of restrictions on freedom of any sort-from freedom of speech and thought to reproductive freedom. They should consider the source of their fantasies on restriction any of our human freedoms. They should take a look in the mirror and make damn sure that they aren’t diabetic, epileptic, asthmatic, folicularly challenged (that's BALD in politically correct-speak) or 'feebleminded' (liberalism is after all a mental illness), because they would be on Dear Oliver’s hit list, too.

Anyone who uses the ever so tired ‘fire in a theatre’ quote better damn well know who it came from, and what he stood for because it ain’t pretty. Not only is the quote misused, but there is needs to be far more discussion on the totalitarian beast behind the quote that liberals try to use to scare free-speechers. Your thoughts and freedom of speech are clearly, only the beginning.