So much for oprning students minds…
Recent Comments
RSS feed
TheFIREorg: College Professor Censors Anti-Obama Comment on Free Speech Wall
October 2, 2012 — xanthippaGeorge Igler: Freedom of speech under attack in Britain
September 26, 2012 — xanthippaWarrantless searches – the new ‘normal’
September 26, 2012 — xanthippaIn Ontario in particular, but in all of Canada in general.
This ought to raise your eyebrows, regardless of your political affiliation because expanded ‘State powers’ can be used to abuse any citizen, regardless of political affiliation…
‘Innocence of the Muslims’ – Toronto Style
September 24, 2012 — xanthippaLast Saturday, there was a ‘multi-faith’ protest against the blasphemous movie, ‘Innocence of the Muslims’.
In so many parts of the worlds, these protests have been extremely violent and, well, deadly. And not just from the primary rioting: in many places of the world, Muslims who were not deemed to be sufficiently ardent in protesting have faced violence. In one famous example, a man who declined to close his shop in order to join the riots in Pakistan has been charged with ‘blasphemy’ and is facing life in jail or a death sentence. In another example, journalists whom the rioters suspected of not giving their riots sufficient coverage (or casting them in positive enough light – depending on which sources you read) were violently attacked and barely escaped with their lives.
So, I am very happy to report that the Toronto protests were all peaceful.
Well, peaceful in the sense that the people protesting did not riot – and that is a good thing. That some of the protesters called for violence – and even the death of the moviemakers – that is less good.
Here are some videos of both the protest and the coverage thereof by Sun Media:
Ezra Levant with Raheel Raza:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e1A6QOtf-88&feature=colike
If you’d like to check it out – Muslims Facing Tomorrow website is here.
Michael Coren’s (who made it to the protest personally) coverage is here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgzfxjsly-c&feature=colike
BTW – I oppose the laws that forbid the denial of the holocaust. Not because I don’t thing it happened – my mother, as a small child, guided by her mother – actually sneaked food to Jewish concentration camp inmates when they were on a work detail in her neighbourhood. My grandmother saw, with her own eyes, a prisoner, dive onto a compost heap to eat some potato peels – and how, for this, he was beaten to death by his guard…using a beam with a nail in it… Yes, I know it happened and I have heard 1st person testimony of just how nightmarish it was. That, of course, is not the point: even if they are vicious lies, people must be free to say them, and say them publicly. To me, freedom of speech is absolute.
BlazingaCatFur – who was also there – asks some very basic questions:
SDAMatt2a, who also attended the event in order to report on it, captured the protester’s assertion that ‘Islam condones racism’. In case you think this is a linguistic error, please, do consider that the Koran itself considers the supremacy of Arabs over other races (and the Qureshi tribe is given supremacy over other Arabs) and that under Sharia – even today, it is not just illegal for any non-Muslim men to marry a Muslim woman, it is also illegal for non-white Muslim men to marry white Muslim women, it is illegal for non-Arab Muslim men to marry Arab Muslim women and it is illegal for non-Qureshi Muslim men to marry Qureshi Muslim women. That is recognized by ALL the ‘schools’ of Sharia and women whose wali (legal guardian) who agrees on their behalf to a marriage contract (as women cannot agree on their own – that power is reserved for their guardian alone) to a man in contradiction of this race-based rule have the right to sue for divorce on the grounds of having been married ‘below their racial status’. All schools of Islamic jurisprudence recognize this and side with the race-based ‘status’. I personally think this is wrong – but I do not have any influence over Sharia…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUN8c0dGmFg&feature=colike
Sad.
So sad…
The French got it right – and wrong – at the same time
September 22, 2012 — xanthippaFree speech is paramount to the continuation of our society.
Finally, even our elites are beginning to realize this, even if they are not willing to express it openly – yet.
Even a few in the media are begginning to acknowledge this, even though most are still confused about what ‘incitement to riot’ is.
Aside:
Just for the record, saying “Your Mama wears army boots!” is an insult, not incitement to riot, violence or murder. Saying “Kill those who say My Mama wears army boots!” is incitement to murder.
Even if you replace ‘your Mama’ with ‘Your Prophet’ and ‘wears army boots’ with ‘rapes little girls’.
And offering money to anyone who kills ‘Steve X’, because ‘Steve X’ said or wrote or drew or filmed something, is conspiracy to murder…and a criminal act.
I’m only explaining this because so many policymakers in the USA and UK and media members everywhere seem to have trouble understanding this simple distinction.
Back to the French…
Last week, the satirical magazine ‘Charlie Hebdo’ published some more ‘Mohammed cartoons’. Good for them.
What is more, they announced ahead of time that they were going to do so.
The response of the French government: send riot police to guard the magazine from rioters, because, as they quite correctly said, free speech must be protected. And, they beefed up the security at their Embassies, in case there was a backlash there.
That is what the French got right.
It’s the next bit I have a problem with: the French banned all protests against the cartoons!
I’m sorry, but that is just as wrong as banning the cartoons themselves!
Peaceful protests are a necessary expression of the freedom of speech and no government may ban them, on any grounds.
EVER!
Sure, if the protests turn violent, the police are obligated to arrest those who break the law and riot. That goes without saying. But banning a protest just because it might – even if it is very likely that it might – turn violent is a violation of the very principles that were upheld by protecting the publication of the cartoons!
You cant’d punish pre-crime and you cannot limit someone’s rights because of what they might do.
Well, obviously, you can – the French just did it.
What I mean is that it is wrong to do so…
Freedom of speech is for everyone.
It is especially important that we protect the freedom of speech of those who say things we don’t like.
Sure, the protests were likely to turn violent. Pretending otherwise would be naive.
But the power of the government does not extend to limiting the freedoms of their citizens to commit crimes – only to arrest them and punish them in accordance with the laws after they break the law!
Yes, there is a problem in many places with protests turning violent: but that is because in the past, the police have been negligent in apprehending and punishing those who break the laws during protests. That is a problem which needs to be acknowledged and dealt with.
But past negligence in enforcing the laws sufficiently does not give any goverment the right to abrogate the rights of its citizens – especially a core right, like freedom of speech.
On the topic of freedom of speech…and ‘scapegoating’
September 17, 2012 — xanthippahttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAmmfxs8q2Y&feature=colike
Many people think that it is a reasonable limitation on the freedom of free speech to prohibit someone from yelling ‘FIRE!’ in a crowded theatre – provided, that is, that there is no fire.
That little caveat – provided that there is no fire – is often forgotten by those who wold consider this to be a reasonable limitation of free speech. This, indeed, is not surprising – failure to recognize real warnings of danger and simply treating unpopular statements equally, whether they are true or not, is symptomatic of the individuals who most loudly profess that this limitation on the freedom of speech is somehow ‘reasonable’.
According to these people, giving a warning of a real ad present peril (like, say, a fire in a crowded theatre) is worse than letting everyone sit complacently until they burn to death.
I must admit, there was a time when I was persuaded that if there indeed were no fire, then shouting a warning of it ought not happen. OK, I still think that it ought not happen – but not because there are laws against it.
To explain my change of mind, I have to digress a little bit to some examples on utilitarian morality from philosophy. Not that I am particularly versed in philosophy – my ideas are mostly self-reasoned, but a little education has made me widen the scope of my reasoning.
There is that classical moral dilema question: if you see an uncontrollable train going down some tracks where it will hit six people, but there is a lever you can pull that will divert that train onto another set of tracks, where it will only kill one person, should you pull the lever?
Most ‘utilitarians’ will say that yes, you should, because one death is less tragic than 6 deaths.
I don’t think this is anywhere near as clear cut.
If the train stays on its original track, you (presuming the uncontrollable-ness of the train is not your fault to start off with) are not responsible for the deaths of those 6 people.
If, however, you do pull the lever, you will be the direct cause of the death of that 1 person.
People are not cogs, interchangeable for each other. We are individuals. And, if you pull that lever, you will indeed be guilty of causing the death of that individual. What is more, since you have had time to consider it, that constitutes premeditation. You would therefore be commiting murder.
This means that the question itself is improperly formulated.
Rather, it ought to ask if you could pull that lever and save the 6 people – but in the process murder 1 person, with all the legal consequences this carries, should you still pull that lever?
Because that is the real question: is saving the lives of 6 people worth murdering someone – and, perhaps, spending the rest of your life in prison as a result! After all, real actions have real consequences…
Similarly, the person who shouts ‘FIRE!” in a crowded theatre has not actually killed anyone.
It is the people who act before checking whether their actions are based on fact or not, and those who put their lives above others by trampling them to death to save themselves, who are guilty of, well, the trampling. Not the person who – rightly or wrongly – shouts ‘Fire!’
It is always the tramplers who are the ones guilty of the trampling.
But, because there are many of them, and our moral compass has for too long been corrupted by the profoundly immoral Judeo-Christian doctrine of ‘scapegoating’, of ‘vicarious redemption’, that we are willing to put the blame of the many ‘tramplers’ onto the one who may not, indeed, have done any ‘trampling’ at all!
It is precisely this predisposition we have of shifting the blame for the actions of the individuals who actually carry them out onto a scapegoat who is said to have ’caused’ their bad or immoral behaviour that is going to be the downfall of our society!
It is precisely this scapegoating which is at the heart of political correctness and the erosion of the freedoms which we ought to be able to exercise unfettered.
How have we improved our lot if we have liberated ourselves from Christian religious dogmas, if we permit its worst shackles to still imprison our morality, albeit under the new name of ‘political correctnes’?
So, now, I agree with Christopher Hitchens on this point:
A few words on recent events in Lybia
September 13, 2012 — xanthippaOK – I have been avoiding commenting on the happenings in the Muslim world lately.
That is because I feel like a Cassandra…
And it’s only going to get worse.
Much worse!
There is a guide as to how a country will be affected by Islam based on what percentage of the population is Muslim. The lower the percentage, the more easy-going and moderate the Muslim population is. As the percentage increases, so does the aggressiveness of the messages being preached in Mosques and so does the aggressiveness of Muslim’s demand for accommodation and eventually for the supremacy of their way of life. I have seen it in many variations at different places, but here is one scale that is typcial:
As long as the Muslim population remains around or under 2% in any given country, they will — for the most part — be regarded as a
peace-loving minority, and not as a threat to other citizens.
At 2% to 5%, they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities
and disaffected groups, often with major recruiting from the jails and
among street gangs.
From 5% on, they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to
their percentage of the population. For example, they will push for the
introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing
food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on
supermarket chains to feature halal on their shelves — along with
threats for failure to comply.
At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow
them to rule themselves (within their ghettos) under Sharia, the Islamic
Law. The ultimate goal of Islamists is to establish Sharia law over the
entire world.
When Muslims approach 10% of the population, they tend to increase
lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions. In Paris, we
are already seeing car-burnings. Any non-Muslim action offends Islam and
results in uprisings and threats, such as in Amsterdam, with opposition
to Mohammed cartoons and films about Islam. Such tensions are seen
daily.
After reaching 20%, nations can expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad
militia formations, sporadic killings, and the burnings of Christian
churches and Jewish synagogues.
At 40%, nations experience widespread massacres, chronic terror
attacks, and ongoing militia warfare.
From 60%, nations experience unfettered persecution of non-believers
of all other religions (including non-conforming Muslims), sporadic
ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon, and Jizya,
the tax placed on infidels.
After 80%, expect daily intimidation and violent jihad, some
state-run ethnic cleansing, and even some genocide, as these nations
drive out the infidels, and move toward 100%.
100% will usher in the peace of ‘Dar-es-Salaam’ — the Islamic House
of Peace. Here there’s supposed to be peace, because everybody is a
Muslim, the Madrasses are the only schools, and the Koran is the only
word.
Unfortunately, peace is never achieved, as in these 100% states the
most radical Muslims intimidate and spew hatred, and satisfy their blood
lust by killing less radical Muslims, for a variety of reasons.
This is true – more or less, let’s put our political correctness in its place and face reality for a while – within individual countries.
Currently, the World Muslim population is at over 20 percent – and climbing fast…because uneducated and subjegated women tend to have way more children than educated, emancipated women do. And, because we stil don’t protect children from being brainwashed into their parents’ religious prejudices…
So, keep in mind the 20% description:
After reaching 20%, nations can expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad
militia formations, sporadic killings, and the burnings of Christian
churches and Jewish synagogues.
Please, keep this in mind when you consider world events these days:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TqO4ToLIWPo&feature=colike
And that is why I have not really been commenting on current events…
Buckyballs vs The Consumer Products Safety Commission
September 13, 2012 — xanthippaI may be a little more pro-free-market than 99.9% of the pro-free-market people ‘out there’. I do not recognize the authority of governments to forbid the free exchange of goods and services – regardless of the goods and services being exchanged. If both parties agree without coersion, then the government has no right interfering.
On a good day, perhaps, I could be talked into agreeing that, perhaps, a government has a role in consumer protection – but only in as much as they make it possible to prosecute false advertizing/insufficient warning.
Perhaps…
However, you don’t need to be as pro-freedom as I in order to find the ‘Bucky Balls’ situation appalling:
September 11th is a day for mourning…
September 11, 2012 — xanthippa…no matter how much the political elites and the inteligentsia want to twist the message…
Xanthippa's Chamberpot 