Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

http://www.davidicke.com/oi/extras/07/december/freespeech.jpg

... TO SAY WHAT WE TELL YOU ...

'I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.' - attributed to Voltaire


Hello all ...

There have been two front-page stories in the UK this week that are fundamentally connected, although I have seen no-one yet connect them.

One is the arrest of a British teacher in the Sudan for the heinous crime of allowing her pupils to name a teddy bear 'Mohammed'. Deep breath, no, I'm not kidding. When it comes to ignorant, juvenile, brain-dead stupidity, the extreme end of the Islamic religion is state-of-the-art. Well, alongside the extreme end of Judaism, Christianity, and many others, that is.

Gillian Gibbons was threatened with 40 lashes at one point for her teddy bear 'insult', but a court decided, amid British public outrage, to jail her for 15 days and then have her deported. Thousands even marched in the Sudanese capital, Khartoum, calling for a more severe sentence, including some who wanted her to be shot. These people are programmed robots, batteries clearly not included. I have seen carrots with more intelligence.

I think I shall buy my granddaughter a teddy bear and call it Mohammed Jesus Jehovah Krishna. If any brain donor with a holy book wants to take offence I can always provide them with a finger to swivel on. I am so sick of this self-obsessed, holier-than-thou arrogance that seeks to impose its belief-program on the populous and screams 'I'm offended' whenever they don't comply. I saw one protesting Muslim software disk shout: 'We're revolting'. I couldn't help but agree.

The other story this week was the demonstration by Oxford University students aimed at preventing Nick Griffin, leader of the far right British National Party, and David Irving, the controversial historian jailed in Austria for 'holocaust denial', from speaking in a debate about free speech at the Oxford Union debating society

http://www.davidicke.com/oi/extras/07/december/nickgriffin.jpg
The British National Party's Nick Griffin arrives at the Oxford Union.

The irony is that at least most of the protestors at Oxford demanding that the two speakers be banned from appearing would have been equally appalled at a woman being lashed or jailed because a pupil named a teddy after the Muslim Prophet.

They are, however, so consumed by their own sense of self-purity, so far up their own anal passages, that they would never see that what they do in seeking to deny freedom of expression is just another version of 'stone the blasphemer'.

My problem is not with the protest against Griffin and Irving, that is protestors' free right (at least for now). It is that they sought to stop their freedom of expression.

The Robot Radicals of the Laxative Left really are something else and every bit as computer-like as the Robot Racists of the Ridiculous Right. A wonderful example is the website called 'Broad Student Left' (http://www.studentbroadleft.org).

There, I found this:

'Oxford Unite Against Fascism, Oxford University Student Union, Oxford University Labour Club, Oxford and District Trades Council, Oxfordshire UNISON Health and Unite Against Fascism have called a peaceful demonstration in the event of fascist BNP leader Nick Griffin and Holocaust denier David Irving speaking in the free speech forum on Monday 26 November at Oxford Union. We are still campaigning for the Oxford Union to rescind the invitations to Griffin and Irving.'

Lower down the same page was this:

Defend freedom of religion, conscience and thought - End attacks on Muslims - a motion to National Union of Students National Executive Committee.

Am I missing something here, or are they really so blind that even the most blatant contraction defeats them? Mind, to be fair, they don't actually mention freedom of 'speech' there, but another article on the same page declares: 'The Left must defend freedom of expression'.

Then why doesn't it?

The answer is that 'the Left', like 'the Right' and 90%-plus of global society, doesn't want freedom. They couldn't handle it. All their circuits would buckle and their fuses blow. They would be tramping aimlessly through the streets with staring eyes and blank expressions repeating in their terminal bewilderment: 'You mean, people are free to say what I don't agree with??'

Er, yeah. That's what real freedom is and that's why the vast majority don't want it. The 'freedom' they babble on about is not freedom, but their freedom - their right to do and say what they choose while denying the same rights to others.

http://www.davidicke.com/oi/extras/07/december/protest.jpg

Had those same protesting Oxford students been banned from a debate at the Oxford Union they would have been screaming 'human rights' and 'freedom of speech'. Ahh, but that's different because that's them and they are the good guys. You can tell by the hearts emblazoned on their sleeves. 'We must be allowed freedom of expression because what we say is right and good - it's the baddies that must be stopped.'

Contradiction and irony are indivisible and thus you have both in abundance with the doublethinking free speech deniers who also believe in the right to free speech. For instance, one of their heroes, the American academic, Noam Chomsky, said: 'If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all'.

But the Robot Radical computer software is so firewalled from reality that it can cheer at that sentiment while doing the opposite. Even then, we need to go further than Chomsky. It is not only that if we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in freedom at all.

It is that if we don't have freedom for those we despise there can be no freedom for anyone. This is the point that most people miss. Put simply, freedom is only freedom when everyone is equally free. You can't be a little bit pregnant and, by the same principle, you can't be a little bit free. You either are, or you aren't.

If people we don't like are not free to say what we don't like, how can we be free to say what we like? We can't, because if others are denied the right to free expression then whatever we say is not free speech, but speech that is within the bounds of official acceptability. That is NOT freedom of expression; it is conformity to what others have decided it is okay to say.

But self-righteousness is a virulent disease of the perception process and its most obvious symptom is selective amnesia. This allows the contradictions to slip through the decoding system and elude the conscious mind. Here is another gem from 'Broad Student Left':

'There is a world of difference between defending free speech and choosing to provide a platform for fascists. Far from being the champions of free speech history shows that when fascists rise to power they destroy freedom of speech, democracy, human rights and they have murdered millions of people and attempted to annihilate entire communities.'

Mmmmm. Where the hell do I start?

http://www.davidicke.com/oi/extras/07/december/protest2.jpg

There is no 'world of difference' between 'defending free speech' and then seeking to deny a platform to those we disagree with. No, hey, hold on, I get it now. It's okay for you to have freedom of speech so long as no-one actually hears you. Gotcha.

Then we are told that when fascists come to power they destroy freedom of speech. So what are these 'anti'-fascists doing trying to stop freedom of speech? I remember a classic quote from a Canadian guy called Richard Warman who vehemently campaigned to have me denied a public platform while working, wait for this, as a 'human rights lawyer'. He once said of me in a British newspaper magazine: 'What benefit can there be in allowing him to speak?'

As head-shaking sentences go, that's up there with any of them.

But that's the way these people think. They should have rights, but not those they oppose and then they have the nerve to promote themselves as 'anti'-fascists when what do the fascists do? They enjoy rights for themselves while denying them to those they oppose - or oppose them.

Richard Warman was connected to the Canadian Green Party at one point and the Greens claim to stand for human rights and freedom of expression. But this same 'Green politics', this time in the UK, banned me from speaking at a meeting at their party conference after a Green Party member invited me. The Greens believe in freedom of speech, you see ... er, But. You can always tell a freedom believer from a freedom denier because with the latter there's always a 'but'.

'I believe in freedom of speech ... but.'

'I believe in equal rights for all ... but.'

'I believe in the right to choose ... but.'

You find this recurring mentality everywhere because, like I say, most people don't want freedom. At the same time they must convince themselves that they do because it would be bad for their self-identity if they didn't believe in it.

http://www.davidicke.com/oi/extras/07/december/hatespeech.jpg
So who decides the difference? One man's 'hate' is another man's 'free thought'

This mentality is at its most blatant within the conspiracy research 'community' around the world. I was on an American radio show a few weeks ago which is there to expose aspects of the conspiracy and comes basically from a Christian perspective. Fair enough, everyone to their own so long as they don't force it on anyone else.

But after about ten minutes the presenter said that their office was getting lots of calls from listeners complaining that I was allowed to be on the show when I was not 'a believer'. To her credit, she turned the rest of the interview into a discussion about these staggering examples of what George Orwell called doublethink.

This is the ability to hold two utterly contradictory views and believe both to be true. In this case, our freedoms, including freedom of expression, are being taken away by a malevolent elite, but you are not allowed to say what you think about this because you don't believe in my religion.

The doublethink comes, once again, from the fact that these people don't want freedom. They want to replace a dictatorship they don't like with a dictatorship that they do. Once you understand this, the doublethink is easily explainable and the conspiracy research arena is awash with such people.

http://www.davidicke.com/oi/extras/07/december/fascism.jpg

You may note that I have made no comment on the views of the two men at the centre of the controversy at the Oxford Union this week. Why? Because it is irrelevant what I think of them. What they say and their right to say it are not the same thing.

I want what people believe to be in the public domain so it can be debated, refuted or shown to have validity. That's what a free society does and what a fascist dictatorship does not.

I heard a BBC radio presenter say of the Oxford Union that 'they would not allow a paedophile to speak and say why he wants sex with children'. Well, I say why the hell not? Do we not want to know what motivates these people so we understand more about why it happens? Do we not want to know who has their designs on children?

No, let's keep it in the shadows and then we don't have to think about it or address what can be done to protect children. We can shout 'ban' everybody we don't like and then we can all retire to the pub, put our hearts on the table, and agree on how pure and wonderful we all are to have won another great victory for 'freedom'.

Yet another irony. The Robot Radicals who use fascist methods to 'oppose' fascism are the very mirror of what they claim to oppose. By their own terms they are racist, sexist, ageist and purveyors of bigotry. How can that be, Dave? Because they are obsessed with all of them as they battle (it's always a 'battle') for the rights of 'Muslims', 'blacks', 'lesbians', 'gays' and any one-parent-working class-Muslim-Jewish-Hindu-homosexual-disabled-minority they can find.

And find them they must because the Robot Radical mentality needs downtrodden people to feed its sense of identity as the John Wayne 'good guy' who fights against evil. Without the downtrodden they have no self-identity and so they have to keep inventing more and more. Thus, they are obsessed with labels of race, sexuality, 'class', and colour.

http://www.davidicke.com/oi/extras/07/december/politicalcorrectness.jpg

That doesn't mean that we should not stand up for those in trouble, of course we should, but if we don't drop the labels we just create more divide and rule and the Robots Radicals do that on an enormous scale.

When I see a Muslim denied rights and justice, I don't see a Muslim, that's irrelevant. I see someone denied rights and justice.

When I see a gay or lesbian denied rights and justice, I don't care what their sexuality is. I see someone denied rights and justice.

It is the same with all these Robot Radical labels. They see labels while I see people, and it is their rights and justice that matter - not their race, sexuality, colour, creed, culture, age or disability.

While the Robot Radicals charge around on their white horses, swords in the air and brains in their backside, they can't see that they are contributing so massively to the demise of the 'freedom' they claim to care so much about. Their protests and their political correctness are denying ever more freedom of expression because no 'minority', manufactured or otherwise, can be allowed to be upset by the words others, no matter if it is their freely and genuinely held opinion.

And while the Robot Radicals set forth for the next great crusade, the truly fascist elite behind world events and the gathering Orwellian state are laughing fit-to-burst at how people could be so utterly stupid as to build their own prison under the banner of 'defending freedom'.

The Robo-Rads go on and on about stopping fascism and defending 'democracy' while 'democracy' (covert fascism with an irrelevant vote) installs the global dictatorship hour by hour. The fascists, the Robo-Rads scream, 'destroy freedom of speech, democracy, human rights and they have murdered millions of people and attempted to annihilate entire communities'.

So have the 'democracies' and among the protest groups at the Oxford Union this week was the Oxford University Labour Club when the British Labour Party under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown have been responsible for the mass slaughter of extraordinary numbers of the very people the Robot Radicals claim to defend.

Another irony disappears on the wind while the Robo-Rads shelter from the breeze.

http://www.davidicke.com/oi/extras/07/december/freedomcircle.jpg
The circle of freedom is getting smaller by the day and the Robot Radicals have at least one finger on the pencil

Martin McCluskey, president of the Oxford Student Union (different to the Oxford Union), said it was 'disgraceful' that Griffin and Irving were given the same platform as past speakers such as Mother Theresa and the Dalai Lama.

His selective memory, so par for the course, forgets that the Oxford Union has been 'graced' by some of the greatest political scoundrels, cheats, liars and mass killers of the last nearly 200 years.

But then so it should be. If we are going to debate the events and matters of the day we must have those responsible, and all shades of opinion, put before us where they can be questioned and, if necessary, exposed for what they do or wish to do.

It's called being grown up. It's called freedom. Remember that?

...........................

Just wondered what your take is on the whole concept of freedom of speech?

I understand what you're saying Dean, but hate speech is wrong and illegal. International laws and human rights are a clear indicator of what is hate speech. If I say all Jews are ****, that's hate speech (even though it's true), and is not allowed because it hurts other people directly.

Gay rights hurt christians, but indirectly, so it's okay.

Originally posted by lord xyz
I understand what you're saying Dean, but hate speech is wrong and illegal. International laws and human rights are a clear indicator of what is hate speech. If I say all Jews are ****, that's hate speech (even though it's true), and is not allowed because it hurts other people directly.

Gay rights hurt christians, but indirectly, so it's okay. That's nonsense of course. Saying All Jews are **** (though it is not true), should not be illegal. You are not harming anyone, you are just throwing out your stupid ideas and you should be allowes to do that.

Originally posted by Bardock42
That's nonsense of course. Saying All Jews are **** (though it is not true), should not be illegal. You are not harming anyone, you are just throwing out your stupid ideas and you should be allowes to do that. Yes, but not everyone is as strong as you and I. THese laws are made for protection.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Yes, but not everyone is as strong as you and I.

Not sure what that has to do with anything, so I must ask you to elaborate on your point.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Not sure what that has to do with anything, so I must ask you to elaborate on your point. If you say all jews are ****, there will be jews that cry and go crazy from it. There are people like that, and by giving people the right to say it would cause conflict. It's not a good thing, should not be allowed.

Originally posted by lord xyz
If you say all jews are ****, there will be jews that cry and go crazy from it. There are people like that, and by giving people the right to say it would cause conflict. It's not a good thing, should not be allowed. That's their problem, really. People do not have the right not to be offended. They have the right not to be physically hurt, but they can just ignore what someone says in a public or private forum. It should be allowed and if it doesn't cause conflict as such, not is conflict necessary a bad thing.

thats why people must learn to tolerate each other, see that we are all one, grow up,evolve and realise that everything is an illusion. illusions that has been great at dividing humanityy

Originally posted by Deano
thats why people must learn to tolerate each other, see that we are all one, grow up,evolve and realise that everything is illusion
What do you mean by that?

Originally posted by Bardock42
That's their problem, really. People do not have the right not to be offended. They have the right not to be physically hurt, but they can just ignore what someone says in a public or private forum. It should be allowed and if it doesn't cause conflict as such, not is conflict necessary a bad thing. So by your reasoning, Hitler's speeches about all Jews are criminals is okay. Nice one.

Originally posted by lord xyz
So by your reasoning, Hitler's speeches about all Jews are criminals is okay. Nice one. Yeah, and?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yeah, and? It made people hate Jews?

Originally posted by lord xyz
It made people hate Jews? They hated Jews before. It was popular because he said what they wanted. Though even then, we can't decide which ideas are alright to support and which aren't. You could say that Anarchists are not allowed to claim their opinions as it creates hate for the Government and might help revolutions in the future. You could say that Conservative views are hateful towards modern families. You could say that liberal (US sense) views are offensive to Religious leaders, etc. Who is to decide which ideas are allowed to be talked about and which aren't?

Originally posted by Bardock42
They hated Jews before. It was popular because he said what they wanted. Though even then, we can't decide which ideas are alright to support and which aren't. You could say that Anarchists are not allowed to claim their opinions as it creates hate for the Government and might help revolutions in the future. You could say that Conservative views are hateful towards modern families. You could say that liberal (US sense) views are offensive to Religious leaders, etc. Who is to decide which ideas are allowed to be talked about and which aren't? Originally posted by lord xyz
Gay rights hurt christians, but indirectly, so it's okay.

Sorry, that does in no way answer or encompass my answer. It is also not true. They hurt in the same way.

But it's not intended to hurt Christians, so it's okay. It depends on the intention.

As for who decides, I don't know, the people?

Originally posted by lord xyz
But it's not intended to hurt Christians, so it's okay. It depends on the intention.

As for who decides, I don't know, the people?

Saying that you hate Jews might not intend to hurt any Jews either.

And that's kinda authoritarian, I believe you did not think any of your answers through so far, maybe you should take a few moments and consider everything you are saying. If you still agree with it we can discuss it then.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Saying that you hate Jews might not intend to hurt any Jews either.

And that's kinda authoritarian, I believe you did not think any of your answers through so far, maybe you should take a few moments and consider everything you are saying. If you still agree with it we can discuss it then. Okay, forget the intention, it's to do with whether it's a direct offense or an indirect offense.

I should've remembered you take everything to the most literal sense...and then insult their intelligence for not being literal.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Okay, forget the intention, it's to do with whether it's a direct offense or an indirect offense.

I should've remembered you take everything to the most literal sense...and then insult their intelligence for not being literal.

Not considering intention I don't see what you mean.

No, I take things in the sense they are written down, I am sorry I can't interpret it the way to not think you are an idiot. You have to write what you really mean, I can't just guess it. And as for that, what you really said was stupid and not very elaborate. Your replies were out of context and not sufficient to counter any of my arguments.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Not considering intention I don't see what you mean.

No, I take things in the sense they are written down, I am sorry I can't interpret it the way to not think you are an idiot. You have to write what you really mean, I can't just guess it. And as for that, what you really said was stupid and not very elaborate. Your replies were out of context and not sufficient to counter any of my arguments. Sorry, I learnt to talk differently to you...and to be understanding of others.

*takes a minute to think of what is allowed and what isn't allowed*

If it a speech that hates something that doesn't deserve to be hated -- to an extreme level -- it should not be allowed.

Is that okay?

Originally posted by lord xyz
Sorry, I learnt to talk differently to you.

*takes a minute to think of what is allowed and what isn't allowed*

If it a speech that hates something that doesn't deserve to be hated -- to an extreme level -- it should not be allowed.

Is that okay? No. You say things that don't deserve to be hated. That's (probably) the most idiotic thing anyone has said today in the world. What deserves to be hated? What does not deserve to be hated? And who decides? You? Me? Hitler?

What's done harm deserves to be hated.

Unbiased politicians decide.

Originally posted by lord xyz
What's done harm deserves to be hated.

Unbiased politicians decide. Click on the Non Aggression Principle link in my signature.


Who is unbiased? You have very naive views. How do you find those unbiased people (you won't, whatever they outlaw is what they are biased against)? How do you find out they are biased? You have to wisen up, your ideals are illogical, you need to abandin them rather sooner than later.

Originally posted by lord xyz
What's done harm deserves to be hated.

Unbiased politicians decide. wait a sec....did you just imply that politicians are unbiased?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Click on the Non Aggression Principle link in my signature.


Who is unbiased? You have very naive views. How do you find those unbiased people (you won't, whatever they outlaw is what they are biased against)? How do you find out they are biased? You have to wisen up, your ideals are illogical, you need to abandin them rather sooner than later. What about the smartest person ever? Surely he knows what's what.

Originally posted by lord xyz
What about the smartest person ever? Surely he knows what's what.

a) why?
b) how would you determine them?
c) how would you make sure they are not biased?
d) are you for an all decidind dictator chosen by some consept of intelligence?
e) what if the 4 next smartest people absolutely disagree?
f) what sort of intelligence would you seek?
etc.

You either people say it all, or don't. Simple. Some half minded 'freedom' of speech is lame.

It can't be 'freedom of speech' if there's a restriction, can it now...

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
You either people say it all, or don't. Simple. Some half minded 'freedom' of speech is lame.

It can't be 'freedom of speech' if there's a restriction, can it now...

it could be freedoms of speech. I wouldn't say it implies absolute freedom actually. I think it should. But I can see why it is not necessarily implied. I agree though it is lame.

Someone might come in with saying that telling someone to kill another person would fall under freedom of speech, though I don't subscribe to that, ordering murder is not just random speech, in my opinion.

The term 'Freedom of Speech' actually means a concept which is not literally free.

As was pointed out during the protest, you are not allowed to yell 'Fire!' in a cinema because it might harm people.

Likewise incitement to racial hatred is rightly prevented because of the harm it will cause.

That said, there were absolutely no grounds at all for stopping those two from speaking. They were not saying "burn all Jews now." There was no direct incitement to harm, or for that matter any form of such incitement at all. They hold certain political views that many of us would find repellent, but absolutely the way to fight sich views is via debate and discussion.

Shutting them up does not prevent the spread of the view and gives the cause a martyr.

Though it is arguable whether they should have been offered that platform in the first place.

Originally posted by Bardock42
That's nonsense of course. Saying All Jews are **** (though it is not true), should not be illegal. You are not harming anyone, you are just throwing out your stupid ideas and you should be allowes to do that.

its at this point you kind of know what's coming really

but regardless it has validity and there were several things which i found highly amusing...one of which was



i did not know such a thing existed in such a blatently upper class establishment....but i fear it probably exists due to well off students rebelling again mamma and daddy



ok ok...we get the point...once was enough...4 times isn't neccessary



your name's not Dave...i'm guessing..given previous form that this was written by your usual "Dave"

if so the least you could do is tell people this so they know the angle

regardless...like i say...i agree with the crux of the argument but as the article points out...it hinges on the difference between freedom of speech and freedom of expression

freedom of expression allows for there to be many different religions side by side in countries throughout the world because the expression of the religion in itself is not what offends other religions

it is the freedom of speech which allows people to criticise other religions that also allow hate speech

you will notice that government policy doesn't actually prevent people from performing so callled "hate" speechs in public...it only makes the potential fallout from these speeches a crime...hence you get "inciting racial hatred"...even when no such racial hatred may result from the speech

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Though it is arguable whether they should have been offered that platform in the first place.

Literally speaking, yes, arguable.

But I very much believe what I say above is already an argument saying... yes you should. You should afford them every privilege that any other view can get. All the better for its subsequent demolition.

Meanwhile, calling Oxford University 'upper class' is simple ignorance.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Literally speaking, yes, arguable.

But I very much believe what I say above is already an argument saying... yes you should. You should afford them every privilege that any other view can get. All the better for its subsequent demolition.



Yeah. It's good theoretically, but I doubt a critical deconstruction of their views in an Oxford debate is going to much affect the views of the people that follow them in the first place.

Holocaust denial seems inherently silly to me anyway; it's hardly worth the acknowledgement.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Click on the Non Aggression Principle link in my signature.


Who is unbiased? You have very naive views. How do you find those unbiased people (you won't, whatever they outlaw is what they are biased against)? How do you find out they are biased? You have to wisen up, your ideals are illogical, you need to abandin them rather sooner than later.

"Abandon"

Oooo.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Oooo.

I-it was a payback.