Steyn/Macleans update

October 11, 2008 — xanthippa

As most Canadians are aware, the ‘Steyn verdict’ came out yesterday:  Steyn and Macleans have been acquitted.  If you are not aware of the situation:

  • Macleans is Canada’s oldest news magazine. 
  • Macleans reprinted, as an article, an excerpt from ‘America Alone’, a book by Mark Steyn.
  • In this excerpt, Mark Steyn quotes a Norwegian Imam as saying that (I am paraphrasing) Muslims will win Europe without ever raising the sword, because they will outbreed the indigenous Europeans.
  • The term the Imam used was that ‘Muslims are breeding like mosquitoes’…
  • There was never a question that this is an accurate quote, the Imam has confirmed saying this
  • Despite this, 3 different ‘courts’ – Human Rights Commissions/Tribunals in Canada have charged Steyn/Macleans for ‘spreading hate against Muslims’ for pritnitn this quote.
  • The Human Rights ‘courts’ do not follow the rigorous rules and procedures of a regular court, but their rulings are no less binding.  And, ‘double jeopardy’ (in this case, triple), where a person can only be charged once per offence, do not apply, nor does ‘innocent until proven guilty’, nor is truthfulness of the comment an acceptable defence:  they do not decide truthfullness, but ‘hurtfulness’ of a comment.
  • Their defence bill (not reimbursable, not allowed to even sue to be reimbursed for court costs) has topped 7 figures.

So, finally, yesterday, they were aquitted of the charges.  Here is an MP3 podcast of an interview where Mr. Steyn describes the experience in his own words.   Here’s the audio [mp3] (via Western Standard’s shotgun blog)

Chilling.

Posted in freedoms, opression, politics, society. Tags: , , , , , . Leave a Comment »

What do Olympics and DRMs have in common?

October 1, 2008 — xanthippa

Freedom of speech is so important, it is fundamental to freedom in a society.  The threats to freedom of speech come in many shapes – some from government (like the Canadian Human Rights’ Commissions and similar organizations), some from religious leaders, others from corporate interests.

After all – he who controls what and how ideas are communicated has a great amount of control of what and how people think.  And how they spend their money.  Power and money – it’s that crass.

John Perry Barlow wrote, in an article The Economy of Ideas which appeared in Wired in 1994:

The greatest constraint on your future liberties may come not from government but from corporate legal departments laboring to protect by force what can no longer be protected by practical efficiency or general social consent.

Barlow was speaking of things which we have all seen to happen.  From DRM laws, which are based on the idea of ‘every customer is guilty of being a potential pirate, don’t bother with a defence’, to some serious weight being thrown around by the Olympic committees, we are experiencing true and real erosion of our freedom of speech and expression with the sole aim to further corporate interests.

Don’t think so?

If someone from ‘the government’ tried to control what people wore to a sporting event, we would scream ‘censorship’.  Yet, Olympic organizers get away with it – if your T-shirt displays a logo of a non-sponsor, you are asked to remove it, wear it inside out, or – I know this happened at the Athens games – you are handed an official Olympic ‘logo cover’ thingy you have to stick over top of your ‘unapproved’ logo.

This is all in the name of ‘protecting their sponsors’!

Want to drink water from a non-sponsor’s bottle?  Not at the Olympics….

Is your hotel, near the Olympic venue – and visible from it, not a sponsor?  Well, then its name will have to be covered up during the games by the official Olympic ‘sign cover’.  (In Beijing, all logos, even on water taps and toilets, from non-sponsors were covered up by sticky tape.)

And we all know how much the IOC is intent on ‘protecting’ freedom of speech from the nice deal they struck with the Chinese about censoring all ‘non-sports relevant’ internet sites.  Their attitude is best exemplified by this answer, given by BOCOG speaker Sun Weide, when asked why access to all sites about Falun Gong religion….keep in mind, the question was why was the access censored:

“I would remind you that Falun Gong is an evil, fake religion which has been banned by the Chinese government.”

But all this is just a tip of the ice-berg.

The IOC – and its various local minions – have been busy little beavers indeed.  If you think the Beijing one (BOCOG) was in Communist country and therefore much more oppressive than most, think again.  Look at what is already happening in preparation for the Olympic Games in Vancouver (VANOC) in 2010!

  1. Bits of the Canadain National Anthem are being TRADEMARKED by the Vancouver organizers.
  2. Other words, like ‘winter’, ‘2010’, ‘games’, ‘medal’, ‘gold’ and many more are also being trademarked by VANOC. 

Usually, these would be just too general to be registered – but that does not worry the Olympic committee.  While back, they got a law passed (I understand that there is a similar law in the USA), Bil C-47, which makes it OK…

You may think that it is really just meant to protect the sponsors, that the IOC would not abuse this to hassle legitimate businesses, right?  You might want to discuss that with the many businesses that have the word ‘Olympic’ in their name – even Greek restaurants, in Greece…or ones on ‘Olympic peninsula’ in North America.  They might be able to explain why they keep receiving letters from the IOC lawyers, telling them they are in violation of a trademark…

Freedom of speech indeed… 

From DRM laws which assume all of us are lawbreakers and must be handcuffed (digitally) lest we steal what we see, greedy corporate interests, to corrupt, money and power grubbing international organizations, we are increasingly finding our freedoms eroded, one little bit at a time.

And isn’t it a coincidence that both the ‘Olympic marks’ Bill C-47, which allows unprecendented powers of censorship to the Olympic Committee, and the ‘movie piracy’ Bill C-59 both received royal assent on the same day?

Posted in freedoms, opression, politics, society. Tags: , , , , , . Leave a Comment »

There is more than one way to stop ‘free speech’

September 29, 2008 — xanthippa

Many of us who are 100% ‘free speechers’ wave our hands dismissively and tune out when somebody raises the issue of ‘fair use rights’ on copyrighted materials.  This is a mistake. 

Just as ‘free speechers’ are not just a bunch of racists and rednecks, no matter how loudly their opponents laber them as such, ‘fair use rights’ advocates are not just a bunch of ‘pirates’ and ‘thieves’.  If they were, they would simply steal the content – and certainly not bother to stand up and fight for their rights.

What we need to recognize that these issues are connected:  both revolve around finding the ‘right’  balance of rights versus limitations.  Once we recognize the similarities between these two seemingly separate issues, we can better understand how to arrive at a balance we can all be satisfied with – at least a little bit.

Just like we are willing to put limits onto ‘free speech’ – the proverbial ‘yelling ‘FIRE!’ in a crowded theatre’, and similar limits – it is also justifiable to place limits on the use of ‘music’, ‘movies’, books’ and other intellectual content meant for consumers.  In the first case, ‘public safety’ is threatened.  In the second case, the rights of the creators of this ‘IP content’ need to protect their investment and their ability to reap a fair compensation for having created it.

This does make sense.  The trick is, and always has been, in finding acceptable balance of rights. 

The problem arises when the laws are written so as to only protect one side’s rights, at the expense of the other.  It is no less oppressive than having unreasonable limits placed on one’s freedom of speech, in order to protect some from ‘hurt feelings’. 

But there is another connection, a very fundamental one, between these two issues:  both seek to restrict communication.  Limiting freedom of speech imposes limitations on an individual as to what they are, or are not, free to communicate.  So called ‘fair use’ laws seek to control the means of communication….

Recently, I watched a program that drove home the difference.  It is one-hour long (and part 2 of a 2-part series), but it is well worth watching.  Here, in brief, is the background…

In Sweden, there used to be different ‘fair use’ laws than in North America.  Under Swedish laws, it was legal to set up a company called ‘Pirate Bay’ – even though this was, at that time, illegal under US laws.  The ‘Hollywood industry’ used its influence to pressure the White House, which, in turn, pressured the Swedish government, into police raids and materiel confiscation against ‘Pirate Bay’, even though their own attorneys advised the government that the operation was perfectly legal…..  Part 1 of the show, ‘Steal This Film’ deals with this.  I found the segments of it on YouTube here, here, here, and here.

Part 2 discusses the very interesting issue of how these ‘fair use’ laws are (and are not) balanced – and why.  And yes, how this directly impacts ‘freedom of speech’.  Very interesting, the whole lot of it.  The links for the YouTube version are here, here, here, here, here and here.

While Part 2, section 2 has a comprehensive history of ‘copyright’ and its implications from book printing on (and thus VERY much worth watching), it is Part 2, section 4 that sums up – in my mind – the essence of this debate.  It is not just about IP – it is about the control of the means of delivering ‘culture’ to us all…  And whoever controls the means of delivery also controls which voices will be heard.

I suppose one could see the ‘fair use’ battle as the corrollary to the ‘free speech’ battle.  While one is a battle to allow one to speak freely, the other one is the battle to allow one to be heard freely.  After all, if one is allowed ‘free speech’ – but only in isolation, where what one says is not actually heard by any other human being – it is a hollow victory…

It’s something to think about.

Posted in debate, freedoms, human nature, opression, philosophy, politics, society. Tags: , , , , , . Leave a Comment »

Jack Layton insults Canadian artists

September 24, 2008 — xanthippa

Trying to paint himself as a supporter of the arts during this election campaign, NDP leader Jack Layton has accidentally demonstrated his contempt for Canadian artists with this election promise:

Mr. Layton promised that if elected Prime Minister, he will use the CRTC (the government tool used to reign in radio and TV stations in Canada and ensure their content is appropriately censored) to force all TV networks to only show ‘Canadian content with Canadian actors’ during prime time viewing hours.  (I could not find the audio clip of when I heard him speak – the link above is to an article reporting it….but the article had watered down his statement.  If you find the clip, please, let me know and I will edit the post to insert it here.  Thanks.)

What is this man thinking?

Yes, some say this is a mute point, as he will never win enough votes to be the next Prime Minister (even as a leader of a coalition, which he seems to be striving for now) – but his very suggestion normalizes this type of action and makes it seem less extreme the next time someone suggests it.  And I don’t like it. 

Why?

Aside from this being a terrible insult to Canadian artists (the ‘soft’ or ‘condescending’ type or ‘snobby prejudice’ – “they are so pathetic, without MY help here to eliminate all their competition, they could never make it on THEIR merits…..because they have NONE!”), he also made a call to heavily fund these ‘artists’.  Let’s follow the chain of consequnces here.  Step by step…

  1. Government subsidizes (pays for) ‘Canadian art’
  2. The government, of course, has to be ‘accountable’ for this spending, and so must select what bits of ‘Canadian art’ are actually worthy of being paid for
  3. Government forces the privately owned TV networks to show nothing but the ‘Canadian arts content’ during prime time TV viewing hours
  4. In order to be eligible for this ‘Canadian content’ (and thus eligible to be broadcast during these crucial-for-survival time slots), the ‘Canadian art’ will have to be certified as such by the government’s very own agency, CRTC

In effect, the government pays for the ‘Canadian art’ it first approves, then forces the TV networks to only show the bits it approves of the most.  Thus, the government has 100% control over what we get to watch! (During prime time only, of course…)

HOW could any artist in Canada stand for this type of subjugation? 

This turns every artists who would qualify for the label ‘Canadian content’ to be, in effect, a civil servant!  We have seen in the past Canadian hockey teams, starring Canadian athletes, in a Canadian sports league, be refused (by CRTC) the label ‘Canadian content’ on the grounds that ‘sports’ did not qualify (perhaps because people like to watch sports….and it is hard to slip in ‘approved social messaging’ into a hockey game ‘dialogue’…)

The only ‘art’ we would be allowed to watch would be produced by ‘de facto’ civil servants!

And we have seen what has happened to our doctors, when THEY were turned into ‘de facto’ civil servants:  the government, through various means, attempts to deny them even the freedom to act according to their conscience!  Frankly, I don’t think the government is wrong to demand that its employees/contractors provide all the services the government pays them to – the problem is that doctors should never have been made into government employees/contractors in the first place.

And nor should artists!

Posted in education, freedoms, politics, society. Tags: , , , , . Leave a Comment »

Which way does the insult go?

September 20, 2008 — xanthippa

I love Canada.  I am a proud Canadain.  However, nothing is perfect – not even Canada.  And it has made me ache to see my beloved country destroyed from the inside by the ‘tyrrany of the nice’.  Of course, there is nothing ‘nice’ about this tyranny.  It corresponds to ‘nice’ about as much as shadenfreude does to ‘pleasure’.

I speak of nothing else than the encroaching ‘fascism with a smile’.  The thought police.  And before most of us noticed, they have rotted the core of several of our legal institutions here in Canada – and are having a go in the USA, too.  But, like a wart – the infection gets deeply sunk into the flesh before the outward signs are visible.

More and more Canadians have begun to wake up and smell the poison in our cups.  Mostly regular people, who don’t understand why a person is not allowed to smoke a perfectly legal cigarette where a ‘privileged’ one can openly smoke marijuana.  Or why a priest must never express his views – for the rest of his life – on issues like gay marriage.  (Don’t get me wrong, I think it idiotic and immoral to oppose same-sex marriage.  But somehow, I expect that many priests might have a different take on this – and that is their right.)

And since the calm, laid-back Canadians that we are actually began to discuss this at the watercoolers, coffe-shops and medical clinic waiting rooms (lots of people to talk to there), you know the winds of change are not far behind.  So, how do our social engineers respond?

By sicking their ‘calming sqad’ at us. 

I have trouble reading most ‘mainstream media’ print, because I love the English language and it pains me to see the abuse of grammar so routinely commited there.  But, on occassion, people bring articles to my attention… as Blazing Catfur and FiveFeetOfFury have done here.

It is stories like these that make me question whether there is such a thing as ‘media bias’.  That seems a singularly inappropriate concept – which implies that ‘bias’ is something that ‘could’ be a property of today’s journalism.  Considering the ‘social engineering’ tone of ‘calming the populace’ this article takes, I think its aim is to educate us on what we ought to be thinking.  How could that be referred to as bias?  

It is not a ‘fluff piece’, as some seem to suggest.  To the contrary.  It is a well crafted educational piece, loaded with all the ‘proper’ buzzwords to ‘show us’ what we ‘ought to think’.  To coddle us back into our woolly-headed sleepiness.  Herd the sheep into the corale…   That is the aim of the article – at least, in my never-humble-opinion.

Yet, it seems to have backfired.  Perhaps it went too far in its tone of condescention, or perhaps it came too late.  People were too awake to simply sink back into their slumber.  The comments section reflects this, and is the most interesting part of this article.  I, too, would have left a comment – but there is no way I’m giving my address to any organization that prints drivel like this! 

Ah, yes.  The comments section.  Many of the comments point out that Mr. Warman, the much-admired subject of this article who often sues on behalf of others who – in his mind – ‘ought to’ have been offended but were not (and who is one of the worst offenders the thought police has to offer) is suing ‘some bloggers’ (including FiveFeetOfFury and BlazingCatfur) because, somebody commenting on their site called Warman a ‘Nazi’ (I think). 

What I am not entirely clear about is this:  is he suing because he thinks that calling him a ‘Nazi’ is an insult to himself, or to ‘Nazis’???

It could go either way, you know….

Correction:  Blazing Catfur is not, in fact, being sued by Warman (though she had been threatened with other suits).  This was my misunderstanding.  However, many pro-free speech bloggers are.  I apologize for my mistake.

UPDATE:  The Globe and Mail has not closed the ‘Comment’ section on the article I wrote about in this post.  However, Blazing Catfur has taken some screenshots and these can be accessed HERE!  I wonder if this is simply frustration on thier part, because their ‘education’ had backfired, or if someone had threatened them….

Posted in freedoms, opression, politics, society. Tags: , , , , . 7 Comments »

Another person could be jailed for telling jokes!

September 12, 2008 — xanthippa

This time, in Italy:

The Christian world may have been dismayed, even outraged, at the Muslim reaction in 2005 to Danish cartoons satirising the Prophet Muhammed, but Italian law enforcement appears to have had its own sense of humour failure. Giovanni Ferrara, the Rome prosecutor, is invoking the 1929 Lateran Treaty between Italy and the Vatican, which stipulates that an insult to the Pope carries the same penalty as an insult to the Italian President.

…

Even certain sections of the Church are unimpressed. Father Bartolomeo Sorge, a Jesuit scholar, told La Repubblica the move to prosecute Ms Guzzanzi was incomprehensible. “We Christians put up with many insults, it is part of being a Christian, as is forgiveness. I feel sure the Pope has already forgiven those who insulted him on Piazza Navona.”

So, let’s recap this:

  1. Ms. Guzzani told rude jokes about the Pope
  2. She is charged under a law that limits free speech and dates back to fascist times and could face 5 years in jail
  3. the Church does not think she did anything for which she ought to be charged (as in, no victim)
  4. Secular laws are used to persecute her ANYWAY

Does this sound familiar?

Why are there segments of our society which think that people who are not hurt, are not offended, still need legislation to protect their feelings?  Do they REALLY care about the ‘victim’ who claims NOT to be a victim?

Or is this a pretext to manipulate the populace, to exercise power over us and censor any opinions that do not advance the censor’s power?

How much clearer could this be?

(Thanks to FiveFeetOfFury for the tip)

Posted in freedoms, Humour, opression, politics, religion, society. Tags: , , , . Leave a Comment »

MSMs approval ratings sink lower that Bush’s

September 5, 2008 — xanthippa

We have all heard the cries that the Main-Stream Media (MSM) has a pro-liberal, anti-conservative bias.  Members of the MSM dispute this, righteous indignation inflaming their passions.  I am convinced that they truly are unable to see any bias in their coverage – from daily events to political commentary.  Yet, I am equally convince that the bias exists – and that it is very, very pronounced. 

‘Bias’ is such a difficult thing to prove – yet it is easy to spot.  It might not be ‘what’ is written, but ‘how’.  It may not be the words a newsanchor speaks, but how they tilt their head, square or slump their shoulders, how steadily they hold their gaze. 

I notice these things quite a bit – being an Aspie, I do not understand body-language and facial expressions naturally.  Therefore, I have had to learn the nuances of their meanings – and am accustomed to ‘search and interpret’ them.  Where others might get a ‘feeling’ or simply be swayed, I have to actually go through the conscious process of interpreting the manner, affect and body language.  So, yes, I do see it – and it drives me crazy when people deny it is there! 

NewsBusters had an article recently, which confirmed what I have been thinking:  it is not a ‘conspiracy’ among media members, nor are they bribed, or anything ‘fun’ like that.  The righteous indignation most members of the MSM feel does not ring false.  Something else is going on.  Here is a part of the conversation between two journalists, quoted in that article:

HARWOOD: Well, some of – I get what you’re saying, and look, I think that people who talk about bias in the mainstream press, left of center bias, are not imagining things. 

KERNAN: No. 

HARWOOD: It has to do with the kind of people who go into journalism, okay? So I’m not arguing with that general notion.  I think those of us in journalism have to do our best to try to present the most objective view we can of what we have –

KERNAN: I agree.

HARWOOD: But everybody brings their own filter into it.

This is an honest admission that most of the people who wish to enter the profession of journalism are, for reasons unknown, more likely to hold left-of-centre views than otherwise.  But, surely, once in journalism school, the professors will have taught their young recruits how to recognize their own bias, and how to overcome it?

Well, not in my experience….  I went to a University which was known for excellence in two disciplines:  journalism and physics.  I studied the latter.  Yet, I did have some interactions with the school of journalism…

When one of my Math exams was located in the Journalism buildings, some friends joked I did not have to study for it- it was ‘bound to be cancelled’.  Regardless, I went to the exam – only to find the whole building locked up, metal grills blocking all entrances:  someone had phoned in a bomb threat.  I got upset – a bomb threat?!?  That was not a laughing matter!  Yet, other students tried to comfort me:  “This is the Journalism building – the profs would fail them if they did not phone in one or two bomb threats!”

So, who exactly are these professors of journalism? 

Here, demographics play a very important role…  The journalism departments are (or, at least, while I was in University, they were) run by baby-boomers and ex-hippies:  the same people who fought against the Vietnam war by staging student protests and who learned the wrong lesson about ‘class struggle’:  instead of learning (and teaching) to oppose ‘the establishent’, they learned to fight the political views which defined ‘the establishment’ of their youth.

These people are still trying to fight McCathy!

These professors even go so far as to teach that ‘responsible journalism’ is one which provides the information in such a way as to lead their audience to the ‘correct’ opinion!  In other words, instead of teaching ‘impartial journalism’ which reports the facts and allows the audience to form its own conclusions, they are teaching young journalists that producing propaganda is ‘responsible journalism’!  No wonder most of today’s journalists are unable to discern their own bias, or see manipulative reporting as inappropriate!

This is, by no means, an American phenomenon:  it is worldwide… with the added dimension that people outside of the US add a very unmistakable ‘anti-American’ twist.  Please, indulge me here for just a little bit:  American or not, we are all bombarded by the coverage of the US elections.  So, I could not help but notice…. 

Both Barack Obama’s father, and step-father (who influenced him as he grew up) were employed by oil companies.  I do not think there is anything wrong with the fact itself – I am only asking if you think that most people would be left unaware of this fact had this candidate been a Republican?

Which brings me to Mr. Bush – perhaps one of the least liked politicians today.  His popularity ratings today are – according to the most recent polls – somewhere between 35% and 30%.  So, how do the American people see their media?

Among unaffiliated voters, 49% say reporters are trying to hurt Palin, while 32% say their coverage is unbiased. Only five percent (5%) say reporters are trying to help her.

Only 32% of ‘unaffiliated’ Americans think the media does not have left-wing bias!  This, by coincidence, is about the same percentage as approves of Bush as President.

This ought to make them think…

Posted in human nature, language, opression, politics, society. Tags: , , . 1 Comment »

The ‘Island of Sanity’ joins the blogosphere!

September 3, 2008 — xanthippa

This is so exciting!

Canada’s ‘Island of Sanity’, Lowell Green himself, has joined the blogosphere!

Brash, outspoken, and fearless…  Originally, he actually ran for office as a Liberal – but his wisdom increased with years (or his patience ran out with the excesses of the Liberal party).  Either way, he is now a staunch conservative, not afraid to speak up.  (Actually, I doubt he was EVER afraid to speak up!)

With a record for having had the longest-running talk show in North America, this man knows what he speaks of!  Known for exposing the holes in Canada’s education system by asking University students where the St. Lawrence Seaway is – which, mostly, they are unable to answer, he is an outspoken critic of just about everything that is silly, wasteful, or makes little sense. 

And, make no mistake about it, politicians of all stripes listen (or have their minions listen) to Lowell’s morning show on CFRA.  Many have been known to phone in – like us regular folk – and talk to him.

He is also an outspoken champion of our veterans.  Whenever some of our Vets looked like they were going to be left out of some celebrations overseas, Lowell let fly from his pulpit microphone:   within minutes, the funds necessary to send them over were raised and some politician (like, say, the minister in charge of veteran’s affairs) called his show to pledge government support of them.  Whenever a vet has a problem, you can count on Lowell to stand and fight for him!

But not just vets…  Just before Christmas, an elderly couple was robbed, all the presents for their grandkids stolen.  The distraught lady called Lowell, and he comforted her.  Not only did she get offers to drive her visually impaired husband to his medical appointments that day, and – despite her protests – people kept bringing money by the station to help replace the stolen presents. 

That is just the kind of guy Lowell is – genuine, good and looking out for the ‘little guy’. 

A pain in the ‘you-know-where’ – but a genuine, good person.  Our online community will be better, now that he’s joined us!

Posted in human nature, politics, society. Tags: , , . 1 Comment »

Comment to B’nai Brith Canada

August 31, 2008 — xanthippa

B’nai Brith Canada is one of the oldest human rights organizations in Canada.  Several days ago, they released a very interesting document titled:

Hate Jurisdictions of Human Rights Commissions: A System in Need of Reform

Submission by the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada to the Canadian Human Rights Commission

 It is an interesting document, both in what it says and in what its publication implies:  even the most ‘politically correct’ human rights organizations are considering the current happenings at the Canadian HRCs to be, in the least, worriesome.  That should give us all a moment to pause and think!

Dr. Frank Dimant is Executive Vice President of B’nai Brith Canada and CEO of the organization’s Institute for International Affairs and the League for Human Rights.  Yestreday, on his blog ‘Frankly Speaking’, he asked for feedback on what people thought of the abovemantioned document. 

Following is the comment I submitted: 

Having read this submission several days ago, I found much in it which was very true and in need of saying.  Thank you for that.

However, there were some parts which I very strongly disagreed with and which – in my opinion – are illustrations of fundamental misunderstandings of the nature of human rights.  Please, allow me to explain using just one example.

In section iii – ‘Hate jurisdictions and their essential role’, there is a statement:  “The Holocaust did not begin with censorship.  It began with hate speech.  Auschwitz was built with words.”

This statement is demonstrably untrue.  The Holocaust DID INDEED begin with censorship:  the censorship OF hate speech! 

Prior to Hitler’s rise to power, Germany did indeed have hate speech laws, very similar to those we have here in Canada today.  These laws were indeed used to prosecute those who ‘spread hate against Jews’ – and Jewish leaders of that era were very satisfied with the application and efficacy of these laws!

It was precisely these hate speech laws which Hitler, once in power, used in order to silence dissenters – the very people who could have prevented atrocities like Auschwitz…..had they not been stripped of their freedom of speech. 

Auschwitz could never have been built had the fear of prosecution under hate speech laws not silenced those who would have spoken up against it!

It is precisely because hate speech laws can be, were and are used to silence those who would protest ‘incitement to hate’ which makes atrocities a possibility.  True, the ‘incintement to hate’ must (at least at first) be veiled or disguised in order to become entrenched as ‘acceptable’, but the veil can be very thin indeed.  We have seen it in history (the Nazi regime) and we are seeing it again from militant Islamists.

It is not by coincidence that many leaders of militant and politicized Islamism idolize Hitler.  But these Islamists are doing more than just idolizing Hitler- they are quite intentionally emulating him by using hate speech laws as a weapon, not a shield.  Failing to recognize this could be very bad for our society.

There is no place for hate speech laws in a society which wishes to remain free and whose citizens respect each other’s rights.  It was these hate speech laws themselves which facilitated  opression, torture and murder under the Nazi regime and which can (and, I fear, will) be used in this way again!  That is something we must never again allow to happen!

If you would be interested in more of my observartions, please, contact me.

Thank you,

Xanthippa

Posted in freedoms, human nature, opression, politics, society. Tags: , , , , . 4 Comments »

‘You’re pretty fat!’

August 28, 2008 — xanthippa

Out of the mouths of babes!

Recently, I spent some time with my ‘old friend’ and her delightfully honest daughter.  She (the young daughter) informed me that my hair was shiny and looked pretty, that she liked my dress, and that I was ‘pretty fat’. 

I thanked her for her compliments.

It seems strange to me how many people negate young children’s honest observations, and attempt to devalue them! 

OK, ‘years ago’, my friend and I were both quite pretty.  Yet, as we had kids, I had turned into a ‘mama bear’ while my friend had grown into a ‘foxy mama’!  Yes, we have words for women like that! 

Yet, that is not my point.

My point is how we treat ‘honesty’ – especially the type of honesty which comes from the mouths of babes.  My friend’s daughter is pre-school aged, yet her mom looked uncomfortable when her daughter had made a true – even if ‘touchy’ – observation!  Yes, she was relieved I was not hurt or offended – but how could I possibly be hurt or offended by the honesty of a child?

To my friend’s credit – she may have looked ‘uncomfortable’, yet she did not try to stop her daughter from speakng her mind.  I applaud all parents who let their kids speak the truth – even if it is ‘socially uncomfortable’!  Yet, among parents, she in the minority…

Has our society fallen so much that a child saying ‘The Emperor has no clothes’ would be shushed and shut up by it’s ‘politically correct’ parents?

If so, that is a truly sad state of things…for if a child dare not speak the truth, who will?

Posted in human nature, opression, perceptions, society. Tags: , , . 3 Comments »
« Older posts
Newer posts »