Not only warmists are desperate to shut us up….

Crackdown ordered on climate-change sceptics

Ministers who question the majority view among scientists about climate change should “shut up” and instead repeat the Government line on the issue, according to MPs.

Not enough dead bodies in yellow boats

Why don’t you shut up for a while and let me finish?

Attard = Retard

Still no end in sight for Australia’s abominable hate speech laws:

How hate speech laws are used to kill serious debates  (Andrew Bolt)

Michael Sexton SC says the Racial Discrimination Act actually risks making it too dangerous to debate certain political issues – as I have found:

To go back to the example of the Armenians and the Turkish regime of 1916: if some members of the Turkish community could demonstrate that they were offended or insulted by this allegation of the genocide, it would be necessary for the publisher to demonstrate that their view was put forward reasonably and in good faith. This may not seem so difficult in a case about events in 1915. But what about questions of modern history, where there is no real consensus among commentators? What about a statement that the Palestinians’ refusal to negotiate has prevented any settlement in the Middle East? Or that the Israelis’ refusal to surrender illegally occupied land is the real bar to any resolution? Or that the Sri Lankan majority has condoned war crimes against Tamils in the north of the country? Or that some Tamils engaged in a campaign of terrorism against the Sri Lankan government?

The reasonability or otherwise of these views is hardly something that can be sensibly litigated in the Federal Court. But this is precisely what can happen under section 18C in its present terms. The section is obviously of no use in dealing with crude, one-off, verbal abuse. It is much likelier to be used — and has already been used — to attack controversial pieces of journalism or historical writing. This is just one of the reasons its present terms are totally unsatisfactory and need drastic surgery.

An example of exactly this risk under NSW laws:

Tom Switzer, Australian Financial Review, December 23, 1998:  

THE moral of this story is simply this: the Palestinians cannot be trusted in the peace process. Contrary to the accepted wisdom, it is the Palestinians—not the Netanyahu government—who are the true culprits in derailing efforts to reach an agreement over Gaza and the West Bank. Add to this that Mr Yasser Arafat uses Western aid not, as it is intended, for the poor of Gaza, but to build luxury flats for his military and bureaucratic elite, and it would appear that the Palestinians remain vicious thugs who show no serious willingness to comply with agreements. 

Administrative Decisions Tribunal of NSW anti-discrimination ruling on AFR July 24, 2000:

THESE proceedings concern a complaint of racial vilification made by Mr Ali Kazak against The Australian Financial Review. Mr Kazak alleges that an article written by Tom Switzer published on 23 December 1998, contravenes s20C of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (the Act). The article as a whole paints an extremely negative picture of the Palestinian people and an extremely positive picture of the Israeli people and their government. The language used suggests that the Palestinians, unlike the Israelis, are unworthy and undeserving of support because, at least in relation to the peace process, they are hypocritical, untrustworthy, blameworthy and viscous[sic] . . . ..The complaint is substantiated.

Another example, this disgraceful one from France:

Bernard Lewis, the British-born historian of Islamic religion and culture … remains an emeritus professor at Princeton to this day…

Lewis explicitly argued that, although the Turks massacred countless Armenians, there is no evidence that they operated according to a centralized policy of genocide, and that calling the killings that had the effect of diminishing the uniqueness of the Jewish Holocaust.

Lewis’ revisionism on the Armenian question led to his being charged and tried in France for denial a genocide, a crime there, and in the mid-1990s, he was ordered by a French court to pay one franc in damages after losing a case. 

In Switzerland another example of how a valid opinion can be defined as a “factual error” and made an excuse to suppress free speech:

Perinçek – at the time chairman of the Turkish Workers’ Party – had described the Armenian genocide as “an international lie”. He had particularly insisted that whatever massacres had taken place did not meet the definition of genocide under international law.

The Swiss courts found Perinçek guilty of racial discrimination, ruling that the Armenian genocide, like the Jewish genocide, was a proven historical fact. The Swiss courts found that Perinçek’s motives for denying that the Ottoman Empire had perpetrated the crime of genocide against the Armenian people were of a racist tendency and did not contribute to any historical debate.

In Sweden, a different kind of example of the use of “hate speech” laws to stifle debate:

A Swedish pastor who preached a sermon on the Biblical prohibitions against homosexual behavior is waiting to see if the Supreme Court of Sweden will send him to jail for six months for doing so.

Ake Green, the pastor of a small-town Pentecostal church, …  was sentenced to a month in jail last year by a district court.

From France again, in February:


French Muslims are taking satirical paper Charlie Hebdo to court for blasphemy over a front page insulting the Koran. In a separate case, a right-wing MP is being sued for accusing young Muslims of anti-Semitism…

The paper’s premises were firebombed in 2011 after it published cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed.

A Muslim legal defence group brought the case over a front page headlined “The Koran is sh..”….

A hearing has also been set for the 7 April, this time in the southern town of Nîmes, for a case against former decentralisation minister Claude Goasguen that accuses him of “offending the honour and dignity of the Muslim community”, in the words of lawyer Khadija Aoudia, acting for one of France’s two major Muslim associations, the CFCM.

Speaking to a gala organised by a pro-Israel group, KKL, Goasguen claimed that the history of the Holocaust could no longer be taught in French schools “because people are so scared of the reaction of young Muslims who have been drugged in the mosques”.

Anti-Semitic slogans were chanted on a recent “Day of Rage” protest that brought together Catholic fundamentalists, far-right groups and supporters of comedian Dieudonné, some of whom are young Muslims. 

In Turkey last year:

A Turkish court has convicted pianist and composer Fazil Say of blasphemy and inciting hatred over a series of comments he made on Twitter last year.

The musician was given a suspended 10-month jail term…

In one message he retweeted a verse from a poem by Omar Khayyám in which the 11th-century Persian poet attacks pious hypocrisy: “You say rivers of wine flow in heaven, is heaven a tavern to you? You say two huris [companions] await each believer there, is heaven a brothel to you?” In other tweets, he made fun of a muezzin (a caller to prayer) and certain religious practices.

In Italy:

Oriana Fallaci … was a successful war correspondent and interviewer… After 9/11, Fallaci wrote a 14,000 word article for Corriere Della Serra:

“You ask me about the contrast between the two cultures? Well, to be honest, it annoys me even to talk about two cultures, to put them on the same plane,” Fallaci wrote. “Let’s be honest. Our cathedrals are more beautiful than the mosques and the synagogues.” …

Corriere’s publishing arm, Rizzoli, turned the article into a book, La Rabbia e l’Orgoglio (The Rage and the Pride), and within little over a month it had sold 700,000 copies…

Adel Smith, president of the Muslim Union of Italy, sued Fallaci on 8 April 2004,claiming that her book The Force of Reason advocated hate against Islam and Muslims, sometimes by allegedly distorting real historical facts and inventing others. In May 2005, judge Armando Grasso ruled that she should face trial over the accusations.

Note: some of those cases were eventually overturned on appeal, but consider the stress, cost and chilling effect on debate. The laws allow the harassment and persecution of people with unfashionable, new or challenging views.

Again, I am astonished that Jewish leaders cannot see how our own race-hate laws will be turned against them, and that free speech is the greatest friend of their highly articulate community and those of us who defend it.

UPDATE

Patricia Karvelas:

JOHN Moriarty … Aboriginal artist, activist and businessman … [is] backing moves by Attorney-General George Brandis to replace section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act even if it allows some “nasty” things to be aired in public. He believes laws that prohibit speech are more hurtful than helpful to indigenous people…

“…I believe that we should maintain free speech — some will bounce back in people’s faces, but of course someone can be nasty, but some of it, if it is accurate and pertinent, I think we should hear it.”… Mr Moriarty said there should be “open discussions on Aboriginal issues both between black and white” and “among Aboriginal people as well”.

One thought on “Not only warmists are desperate to shut us up….”

  1. Galileo was persecuted for going against a 1600 year “settled science” view held by a majority of learned people.

Comments are closed.