Posted on 01/07/2008 5:52:57 AM PST by Hank Kerchief
by Reginald Firehammer
The world's governments, especially those that pride themselves on being secular, are being used to force religious compliance on everyone. When an Ideology is given special status, so that any speech, article, book, or commentary is repressed if it is unfavorable toward that ideology, it has become the state religion, in this case, the "state" is comprised of most of this world's governments.
These two articles: "Holy Smoke, Don't criticise Islam, says UN," by Damian Thompson, and, "Here's what offends this writer," by Mark Steyn are just two of the latest articles demonstrating the ever tightening grip governments are exercising to squelch all but "government approved" speech.
Mark Steyn makes the point that it is not, "false, or libellous, or seditious," speech that is not approved; if it were any of those it could be establishned objectively. The grounds for the complaint against Steyn are totally subjective, as he says, "Their complaint is essentially emotional: it 'offended' them. And as offensiveness is in the eye of the offended, there's not a lot I can do about that."
And that is the point, and it has been going on for a long time. Freedom of speech is being taken away from us on every front. In my January, 2004, article, "Freedom of Speech means Freedom to Offend," I pointed out, if we are only free to say or print what offends no one, there is no freedom of speech or press at all.
In my article, I quoted an official government (Massachusetts) list of those whose tender feelings one is not allowed to offend: "Black, White, Asian, Hispanic, Arab, Jewish, Catholic, Protestant, Islamic (Moslem), gay (male), lesbian, handicapped, persons with AIDS, physically disabled, mentally disabled, female, or male. In the actual list, 'other,' is included several times, but that seems a bit redundant with the inclusion of the last two, female and male. Who does that leave out, exactly, and what does it leave out? There is virtually nothing one can say or write, to or about, anyone that by some interpretation cannot be considered harassment or hate speech."
Terror and Inquisitions
The latest assault on free speech, however, is far more serious and dangerous than the insidious growing repression has been thus far. It is obvious the PC oppression of free press and speech has, until now, been driven primarily by politicians attempting to curry the favor of every special interest group they could. But this new attempt to squelch all criticism of Islam is driven by an entirely different motivation—fear.
The trial of Mark Steyn, which is really against the publisher, MacLeans, is reminiscent of the inquisition, particularly the Spanish Inquisition, which, though the motivation was different, was carried out by the government of Ferdinand and Isabella and directed against religious heretics. There have been no tortures or public executions yet, only because the Muslims have not yet demanded the heretics who offend Islam be turned over to them for trial under Sharia law—but it is coming.
Be Offensive or Be Enslaved
We have for too long gone out of our way to avoid offending people. While there are always fools who get pleasure out intentionally offending others, most of us do not enjoy other's discomfort, and where possible, avoid offending anyone.
But the world has changed. There is almost no truth one can express that will not offend someone. It has come to the place in our society and the world, if before you speak or write, you consider for a second the question of whether it will or will not offend someone, you have already surrendered.
What you will have surrendered to is what the politicians have already surrendered to, terror. The reason terrorism is growing throughout the world is because terrorism works—but it only works if you surrender to it. Mark Steyn points out that publishers throughout the world are already surrendering. "Canada is not unique in the urge of its bien pensants to pre-emptive surrender: Australian publishers decline books on certain, ah, sensitive subjects; a French novelist was dragged into court to answer for the "Islamophobia" of one of his fictional characters; British editors insist books are vacuumed of anything likely to attract the eye of wealthy Saudis adept at using the English legal system to silence their critics."
If we are to continue to have any freedom, those of us who know the principles those freedoms depend on have to boldly speak and write the truth wherever and whenever we can. People will be offended and you may have to pay the consequence if it happens to be your manager or boss or best friend you offend. Free speech is one thing about which the cliché, "use it or lose it," is true. If you are going to live as a free individual, you will have to be offensive, which is what exercising free speech is.
Little Freedom Left in the World
If you want to know the way the world is going, the following is how the voting went on the UN Resolution that essentially condemns criticism of Islam:
These vile countries all voted for the resolution and against free speech:
AFGHANISTAN
ALGERIA
ANGOLA
ANTIGUAND BARBUDA
AZERBAIJAN
BAHAMAS
BAHRAIN
BANGLADESH
BARBADOS
BELARUS
BELIZE
BENIN
BHUTAN
BOLIVIA
BRUNEI DARUSSALAM
BURKINFASO
CAMBODIA
CAMEROON
CAPE VERDE
CENTRAL AFRICAREPUBLIC
CHAD
CHILE
CHINA
COMOROS
CONGO
COSTRICA
COTE D’IVOIRE
CUBA
DEMOCRATIC PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF KOREA
DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF THE CONGO
DJIBOUTI
DOMINICA
DOMINICAREPUBLIC
EGYPT
EL SALVADOR
EQUATORIAL GUINEA
ERITREA
ETHIOPIA
FIJI
GABON
GAMBIA
GRENADA
GUINEA
GUYANA
HAITI
HONDURAS
INDONESIA
IRAN(ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF)
IRAQ
JAMAICA
JORDAN
THE REPUBLIC OF KAZAKHSTAN
KUWAIT
KYRGYZSTAN
LAO PEOPLE’S DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC
LEBANON
LESOTHO
LIBERIA
LIBYAARAB JAMAHIRIYA
MALAYSIA
MALDIVES
MALI
MAURITANIA
MAURITIUS
MOROCCO
MOZAMBIQUE
MYANMAR
NAMIBIA
NICARAGUA
NIGER
OMAN
PAKISTAN
PHILIPPINES
QATAR
RUSSIAFEDERATION
SAINT KITTS AND NEVIS
SAINT LUCIA
SAINT VINCENT AND THE GRENADINES
SAO TOME AND PRINCIPE
SAUDI ARABIA
SENEGAL
SIERRLEONE
SINGAPORE
SOMALIA
SOUTH AFRICA
SRI LANKA
SUDAN
SURINAME
SWAZILAND
SYRIAARAB REPUBLIC
TAJIKISTAN
THAILAND
TIMOR-LESTE
TOGO
TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO
TUNISIA
TURKEY
TURKMENISTAN
TUVALU
UGANDA
UNITED ARAB EMIRATES
URUGUAY
UZBEKISTAN
VANUATU
VENEZUEL(BOLIVARIAREPUBLIC OF)
VIET NAM
YEMEN
ZAMBIA
ZIMBABWE
No vote was recorded for these. I suppose they hoped they wouldn't be noticed. They needn't have worried:
ALBANIA
BOSNIAND HERZEGOVINA
BURUNDI
GUINEA-BISSAU
REPUBLIC OF KIRIBATI
REPUBLIC OF NAURU
SEYCHELLES
KINGDOM OF TONGA
These pusillanimous countries all abstained, afraid to take a stand for free speech:
ARGENTINA
ARMENIA
BOTSWANA
BRAZIL
CHILE
COLOMBIA
ECUADOR
GHANA
GUATEMALA
INDIA
JAPAN
KENYA
MADAGASCAR
MALAWI
MEXICO
MONGOLIA
NEPAL
NIGERIA
PANAMA
PAPUNEW GUINEA
PARAGUAY
PERU
RWANDA
SOLOMOISLANDS
UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA
Only these countries voted against the resolution and for free speech:
ANDORRA
AUSTRALIA
AUSTRIA
BELGIUM
BULGARIA
CANADA
CROATIA
CYPRUS
CZECH REPUBLIC
DENMARK
ESTONIA
FINLAND
FRANCE
GEORGIA
GERMANY
GREECE
HUNGARY
ICELAND
IRELAND
ISRAEL
ITALY
LATVIA
LIECHTENSTEIN
LITHUANIA
LUXEMBOURG
MALTA
MARSHALL ISLANDS
MICRONESI(FEDERATED STATES OF)
MOLDOVA
MONACO
MONTENEGRO
NETHERLANDS
NEW ZEALAND
NORWAY
PALAU
POLAND
PORTUGAL
REPUBLIC OF KOREA
ROMANIA
SAMOA
SAMARINO
SERBIA
SLOVAKIA
SLOVENIA
SPAIN
SWEDEN
SWITZERLAND
THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA
UKRAINE
UNITED KINGDOM
UNITED STATES
The free world shrinks. Your contribution to that shrinking is to always be careful what you say and write does not offend anyone; after all, you would not want your future masters to be offended.
To reprise Steyn's reprisal of Sir Edward Grey, the lamps are going out all over the world—one distributor, one publisher, one novelist, one cartoonist, one TV host, one commentator, one professor, one student, one boss, one worker, one individual at a time.
So, what else is new?
I really thought both of these countries were living in the free, modern world.
I also find it interesting how many eastern European countries that voted against the measure.
India probably wants to avoid any increase in tensions with Pakistan. Japan is probably happy to remain neutral in the whole thing.
Total rubbish. Freedom of speech and of the press hasn’t been repealed in this country. Until it is, I’m free to criticize Islam and its adherents if I want to.
Very good article by Reginald Firehammer. Thanks for posting.
Was anybody able to find the text of the resolution?
BTW The article above lists Chile both as a Yes and an Abstention. According to the original vote list it appears that Chile Abstained.
“Was anybody able to find the text of the resolution?”
Here:
http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/LTD/N07/579/32/PDF/N0757932.pdf?OpenElement
Note, particularly this paragraph:
“Alarmed at the continuing negative impact of the events of 11 September 2001 on Muslim minorities and communities in some non-Muslim countries, the negative projection of Islam in the media and the introduction and enforcement of laws that specifically discriminate against and target Muslims,”
Hank
Repression starts slowly. First they make you careful about what you say in certain places and with certain people. Try have a child critisize Islam in school, for example.
The second amendment has not been repealed, either, but try exercising your right to carry a gun in New York city.
And it isn’t necessarily the government that will repress your free speech. If you have something to write, and no publisher will print it for fear Muslim reprisals, like it or not, your freedom of press has been repressed.
Remebering that these schools are government funded to some extent, here is one place freedom of speech is already being lost:
“Approximately 100 colleges and universities in the United States have formed ordinances against discriminatory speech based on race, religion, ethnicity, gender, or sexual orientation (Celis A13). In the last two years, seven states have created new hate speech legislation and six states have made their existing legislation stronger. In fact, the only states without hate-crime laws are Utah, Wyoming, Nebraska, and Alaska (Ingwerson 9). Using the classification of “hate speech,” these rules limit speech based upon its content along with the personal feelings of the person expressing themselves. The University of Wisconsin, for example, until just recently had a rule barring “speech intended to create a hostile learning environment by demeaning a person’s race, sex, color, creed, disability, sexual orientation or ancestry” (U. of Wisconsin Repeals A10). Trying to protect the feelings of all, these rules limit students’ expression. Such rules are based upon good intentions: protecting minority groups from being offended. However, the courts have recently ruled that many of these codes are too broad and take away one of the fundamental rights of American citizens: the right of free speech.”
From here: http://www.garretwilson.com/essays/law/freespeakmind.html
The point is, we still mostly have free speech, but if people are afraid to exercise it, we won’t have it for long. And don’t count on the Constitution protecting it. No piece of paper has ever stopped a government from doing whatever it liked.
Hank
Thanks for the link!
Hank
You are most welcome, Mr. Kerchief!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.