Anything to shut you up….

That’s how it works: you set up a commission to deal with crimes of thought and stack it with lefties. You hand them the power to go after anyone for any reason. As a “safeguard”, you require the commission to prosecute its case through the courts. You then stack the courts with the same left-wing activists you appointed to the commission.

Plenty of precedent in the Soviet Union, North Korea, Kampuchea, Saddam’s Iraq, China, Myanmar, East Germany, Romania, Cuba …

And this is what’s cookin’ in Australia right now:

PC police  hire Mohammedan blood hounds to stop criticism of Islam

Andrew Bolt:

Discrimination police get yet more power

More power for the already aggressive Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission?

NEW powers for Victoria’s human rights watchdog will allow it to launch its own investigations, even though it has not received complaints about discrimination.

Major changes to its powers, in legislation to be introduced in Parliament today, follow criticism the watchdog has been reactive to complaints but has not been preventing persistent discrimination in workplaces or industry.

In fact, these thought police have already found back ways to launch their own investigations, and their methods then suggest precisely why Victorians should worry:

(The Equal Opportunity Commission) hired May Helou, head of the Islamic Council of Victoria’s women’s support group. Her job, the EOC said, was to ensure “Arabic and Muslim communities are aware of their rights under anti-discrimination laws” and give “support to people wishing to make a complaint”.

The hounds had been set loose… In March 2002, Helou told Muslim converts at the ICV headquarters of a seminar on jihad to be run by Catch the Fire and asked them to go.

Said one later, she didn’t want the meeting to be held “without any Muslims present”. So when (pastors) Nalliah and Scot got up to speak at their seminar about jihad, they had in front of them 250 born-again Christians – and three people they did not know were Muslims.

And back at the EOC, Helou waited for the three to call with their complaint….

The pastors were at long last tried at VCAT before Justice Michael Higgins… and some curious things soon became clear.

First, even one of the converts had to admit that Scot, who’d been born in Pakistan and got degrees there in theology and applied mathematics, actually understood the Koran far better than did the people complaining he’d misquoted it.

Second, as I wrote at the time, many of the complaints accused Scot of no more than quoting the Koran accurately…

The verdict was also odd. The pastors were found guilty of vilifying Muslims even though the judge identified only one thing Scot had said that was factually wrong: he’d given the wrong birthrate for Muslims here. And, the judge, added, he’d failed to quote a verse that showed Allah was merciful.

Higgins said the real problem with the seminar was that it was not “balanced”…

Very Creepy:

Muslim Brotherhood Chaplain In Illinois State Police Department: CAIR Demands “The accepted leaders of this community are are not to be second guessed”

Atlas Shrugs

Mark Steyn:

There are at least three robust columns on liberty by consistent champions of freedom of expression - George Jonas, Alan Shanoff and Salim Mansur. On the other hand, when I read Salim’s column this morning, this was the most recent comment:

Sean S
March 6th 2010, 9:18am

Free speech must exist to facilitate the free exchange of ideas. Therefore it must involve mutual respect between the communicator and the communicatee. When someone spews hatred then there is no respect and therefore no free speech. Period.

Wow, he sounds so butch when he puts “Period” on the end like that. Why not “Case closed”? Too much effort to type two words? It seems likely that “Sean S” remains far more typical of Canadian opinion than Salim or George Jonas. But his is the faux sophistication of the brain-dead: Why exactly “must” free speech “involve mutual respect between the communicator and the communicatee”?

I don’t respect, say, clitoridectomy practioners or their apologists. Does that mean I have no right to express an opinion on the subject? More>>