11Likes
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With QuoteThe article is almost 2 weeks old.No responses to “When did free speech become illegal?”
When did free speech become illegal?
Published 10:45pm Monday, June 4, 2012
When did free speech become illegal? | The Troy Messenger
Back in 2001, Britain’s political parties signed a fantastic pledge. They agreed to say nothing to “stir up racial or religious hatred, or lead to prejudice on grounds of race, nationality or religion.”
This gag order did more than keep the parties polite. Vital issues – from massive immigration and multiculturalism to their eradicating effects on British civilization – were officially banned. Thus, such concerns became impermissible thoughts. Not that such issues weren’t already thoughtcrime, as George Orwell would have put it. But this unprecedented pledge turned “violators” into political lepers.
I thought of that elite code of cowardice this week when a London judge sentenced a 42-year-old British secretary named Jacqueline Woodhouse to 21 weeks in jail. Her crime? An expletive-laden rant about immigration, multiculturalism and the disappearance of British civilization. Not in so many words. But that was the unmistakable gist of Woodhouse’s commentary one January night on the London Underground.
This same week, another London judge ordered two black girls, 18 and 19, to perform community service after a savage physical attack on two white legal secretaries. “I am satisfied what you both did, you did that night because you were fueled by alcohol,” Judge Stephen Kramer said, as though tut-tutting a child’s unknowing apple theft.
A few months ago, another London judge freed four Somali Muslim women who set upon a white couple, yelling, “Kill the white slag,” and other anti-white slurs. The gang beat the woman to the ground and ripped out a patch of her hair. Judge Robert Brown was lenient because, he ruled, as Muslims, the women were not used to being drunk.
Jacqueline Woodhouse was drunk, too, but that was no mitigating factor in her case. She harmed no one, but that was no mitigating factor, either. Judge Michael Snow invoked the “deep sense of shame” Woodhouse’s display elicited, because “our citizens … may, as a consequence, believe that it secretly represents the views of other white people.”
“Thoughtcrime is death,” as Orwell wrote in “1984.”
And, thanks to YouTube, it becomes continuous spectacle. Woodhouse’s court-deemed “victim,” Galbant Singh Juttla, recorded and uploaded her display. After the six-minute clip went viral, Woodhouse turned herself in to police.
But what might she have confessed to?
I did it, mates. I said: “I used to live in England. Now I live in the United Nations.”
That’ll be 21 weeks in the clink?
Woodhouse said a lot of other things as she surveyed her fellow passengers, her squawky voice weirdly reminiscent of an Eliza Doolittle grown old without having met her Henry Higgins. “All bleeping foreign bleeping bleeps,” she says. “Where do you come from? Where do you come from? Where do you come from?” She estimated that 30 percent of the train’s passengers were in the country illegally.
Off with her head.
Expletives fly regarding England (“this bleeping country is a bleeping joke”), Pakistanis, illegals, pigs.
“I wouldn’t mind if you loved our country,” she said, lucid, to a Pakistani beside her.
“Long live Pakistan,” he said twice in Urdu, later leading a chorus of the Pakistani national anthem.
Woodhouse then notices her “victim” recording her. “Oh, look, he’s filming,” she says. “Hello, government.” She leans into the camera.
“Why don’t you tell us your name, as well?” Juttla the “victim” says.
“Why don’t you tell me where you’re from?” she says.
“I’m British, I’m British, yeah? I’m British,” he tells her.
“Right. OK,” she says.
“So, what’s your problem?” he says.
“Oh, what’s your problem?” she says.
“Yeah, you should watch what you say.”
“Watch what I say?”
“Yeah.”
“I used to live in England. Now I live in the United Nations.”
“So keep your mouth shut then.”
“Why should I?”
Twenty-one weeks in jail, folks.
Why, Woodhouse quite rationally asks, “am I not allowed to express my opinions?”
“We don’t want to hear your opinions,” Juttla replies.
This tears it. “Why is it all right for you but not all right for me?” She’s shrieking now, her voice cutting the air like a ragged-edged razor.
There is background laughter, but nothing is funny. For a few, farcical minutes, a nation’s tragedy, its unmarked passing, has taken the spotlight, the lead role played by a drunken secretary because there is no one else.
“Just keep your mouth shut,” Juttla says for the umpteenth time.
“Why should you open your gob and I can’t open mine?”
“Because you questioned me first,” he says, which isn’t true. Juttla questioned Woodhouse first, asking for her name. Surely, Big Brother would want to know.
“I’m sorry,” she says. “Not one rule for you and one rule for me.”
Oh, yes, Jacqueline. One rule for indigenous islanders.
One rule for everyone else.
(Diana West is the author of “The Death of the Grown-up: How America’s Arrested Development Is Bringing Down Western Civilization,” and blogs at dianawest.net. )
To sit down with these men and deal with them as the representatives of an enlightened and civilized people is to deride ones own dignity and to invite the disaster of their treachery - General Matthew Ridgway
The article is almost 2 weeks old.No responses to “When did free speech become illegal?”
No such thing as a good tax - Churchill
To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.
Adapted from the Ring Poem, JRR Tolkien
Home rule laws for the peoples sitting on edge (Scottish Irish, Welsh).
Sharia laws for the Moslems brandishing the Koran.
Speech laws for the Anglo-Saxons who didn't defend their ground.
International law to bind them, in the multiculturalism remake them and in the darkness bind them.
The day they introduced hate speech laws.Originally Posted by troung
What is hate speech ? anything somebody else does not like.
Many other countries in Europe are similar, in this regard wrt to Nazi propaganda.
Never forget that the US is the only country in the world standing in the way of this nonsense.
How much longer ?
There are thousands, millions of us who would fight for the right of some moron to say "Heil Hitler" or express racially tainted views, because the alternative is SO much worse.Never forget that the US is the only country in the world standing in the way of this nonsense.
How much longer ?
Hate speech laws are the ultimate slippery slope, far longer and more tricky to navigate than slippery slopes dealing with guns, the family, abortion, just about everything. It's impossible to set any sort of line to not cross, because the person interpreting the line... judge, cop, magistrate, citizen... each has a difference of opinion. What's hateful to one is simply logic or truth to another. The only answer is to protect it all.
Read and digest
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?f...&type=1&ref=nf
"When England was a kingdom, we had a king.
When we were an empire, we had an emperor.
Now we're a country
You know I am beginning to wonder about what i said here earlier. About the US being the sole bulwark for free speech. And how long for.
No, what i'm about to say is not to do with the UK but the US. The theme is similar.
There is no room for hateful rhetoric at Harvard
About how you could lose your job if not more if what you say is deemed unacceptable. And in this particular case what was said occurred in another country.
So Long Swamy | Harvard Crimson | Dec 12, 2011
ok, so a private org can decide who gets to stay and who leaves. And USG has not said anything.There is an important line between speech that is unpopular and controversial—and which ought to be protected—and that which is needlessly inflammatory and indefensible.
But i would think a university would have a bit more give in this regard than otherwise. You start clamping down on hate speech in college and its only a matter of time before it spreads to the rest of the system.
Do it at Harvard and there goes the rest of the US colleges.
Last edited by Double Edge; 16 Jul 12, at 20:22.
How dare you attack our progressive and tolerant colleges? In fact, they are so progressive and so tolerant, they will not tolerate you disagreeing with them.
I love liberals. They are so open-minded that they will shout down any opinion that differs from their own. They love diversity as long as it means skin color and not thoughts.
"Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.
Private college excluded a bigoted faculty member who has called for violence - no biggie.In the piece, Swamy calls for the destruction of mosques as retaliation for terrorist attacks in India, as well as the disenfranchisement of Indian Muslims who refuse to acknowledge Hindu ancestry. Swamy's op-ed clearly constitutes hate speech, by even the most lenient definition. As a matter of principle, there is no place for hate speech in the Harvard community.
He didn't go to prison for acting like a douche - that's the difference.
Last edited by troung; 17 Jul 12, at 03:16.
To sit down with these men and deal with them as the representatives of an enlightened and civilized people is to deride ones own dignity and to invite the disaster of their treachery - General Matthew Ridgway
Had Harvard said it amounted to incitement that would be one thing. To my surprise his op-ed did not qualify as the DNA newspaper chose to run it.
Probably this is why Harvard does not make the call whether it was incitement or not.
They want to emphasise that what he said was hateful.Regardless of whether Swamy’s article actually has the ability to incite violence, the worthless, hateful bile contained therein itself ought to disqualify the man from teaching at our University.
And that to me is a college, an important one, private or not that is pushing against hate speech.
Last edited by Double Edge; 17 Jul 12, at 15:17.
I don't see the problem. A faculty member openly calling for the destruction of places of worship of some students. He is in effect standing up telling his Muslims students, I want your Mosque bombed. I would have said, screw you and get out.
Chimo
Double Edge, this is a common misconception by non-USA folk looking at how it is handled here. Free speech is protected ONLY insofar as the government cannot sanction you, cannot fine you or send you to jail. However, you are NOT protected from social ramifications when you decide to be a racist jerk. And institutions can and do sanction individuals, but only with jeapordy for their positions.
Let's say I am a professor, and I suddenly decided I hate "darkies". I begin to make raving, nasty speeches about them. My university is under no obligation to continue to employ me. They can censor me if I do not toe their line. Eventually, they will fire me. But that is the most they can do. I can continue my openly racist speech-making as a private citizen. I can form "whites only" organizations. I can print newsletters and make web sites. My government cannot stop me.
That is where the difference lies. The Bush Government could not muzzle the "Dixie Chicks", but we the people can boycott them, burn their CD's, and let them know we don't care for their speech.
free speech here is mostly for those who don't matter, talk all you want, nobody cares what you say, you're nobody, but once your words have weight, you better watch what you say. but in reality ppl that matter wont run their mouth, it will cots them.
you can even get arrested here too, charge disorderly conduct is purely on cops discretion, if he feels you behave inappropriately, you will get arrested.
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!" B. Franklin
They could do that because it would not be clear whether any of your 'dark' students would be fairly treated. As you cannot refuse not to teach them. They could make an issue about your work performance.
Indulgiing in hate speech affects one's ability to teach all students ?
Nope - they could fire you if you did not have a single "dark" student.They could do that because it would not be clear whether any of your 'dark' students would be fairly treated. As you cannot refuse not to teach them. They could make an issue about your work performance.
That Indian guy is a gigantic douche and as a private employer Harvard can fire him. Has nothing to do with free speech.
To sit down with these men and deal with them as the representatives of an enlightened and civilized people is to deride ones own dignity and to invite the disaster of their treachery - General Matthew Ridgway
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Share this thread with friends: