The primary site for this blog mirror is HERE. Dissecting Leftism is HERE (and mirrored here). The Blogroll. My Home Page. Email me (John Ray) here. Other mirror sites: Greenie Watch, Political Correctness Watch, Education Watch, Immigration Watch, Food & Health Skeptic, Gun Watch, Socialized Medicine, Eye on Britain, Recipes, Dissecting Leftism and Australian Politics. For a list of backups viewable in China, see here. (Click "Refresh" on your browser if background colour is missing) See here or here for the archives of this site
****************************************************************************************



20 March, 2010

Must not "control" even pictures of a woman



Feminist rage:

"A Melbourne bookstore has sparked outrage after being discovered selling a "control a woman" remote - on International Women's Day. The ABC reported Borders was forced to defend the $15 novelty product after a woman told of her anger at seeing it during last week's celebration of female rights and achievements.

Katie Robertson told ABC Radio she was "troubled" by the toy, "mainly because it encourages a stereotype of women as submissive, who are to be controlled". "There are certain buttons on there. For example, the male may decide that he wants beer, sex or food," she said. "He may press a button in which he requires the woman to remove her clothes, cook, clean, leave, (or) say yes. "There's also a button in which you can increase her breast size."

Borders spokeswoman Lauren Thompson said the product was intended to be "a bit funny, a bit of a gimmick", adding "it is base level humour". She also said the chain sells a "control a man" remote, which has sold out.

Source

Keen censors in Australia

We read:

"The Australian Human Rights Commission has threatened legal action against a widely read but controversial US-based website over an article that encourages racial hatred against Aborigines. But online users' lobby group Electronic Frontiers Australia said that trying to stamp out the deplorable content would only create the "Streisand" effect, whereby an attempt to censor online content only brings more attention to it.

In a letter to Joseph Evers, the owner of Encyclopedia Dramatica (ED) - a more shocking version of Wikipedia that contains racist and other offensive articles dubbed as "satire" - the commission said it had received 20 complaints from Aborigines over the "Aboriginal" page on the site.

The same page was in the news in January when, in a rare move, Google Australia agreed to remove links to the article from its search engine following legal action from Aboriginal man Steve Hodder-Watt.

On the Australian Communication and Media Authority's blacklist of "refused classification" websites, which was leaked in March last year, encyclopediadramatica.com was included. This means the entire site will most likely be blocked under the government's forthcoming internet filtering plan.

The commission argued in its letter, the first page of which was published by Evers on his website, that the article on Aborigines constituted racial hatred and was in breach of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975.

A disclaimer at the top of the article, which is too vulgar to repeat here, says it was "not racist at all" because it was written by "Australian aborigines who are satirizing racists in Australia in the same way that Sacha Baron Cohen, a jew, uses the character Borat to satirize anti-semetism [sic]". A separate article on the site about Australia says the country is "comprised entirely of the still imprisoned distant relatives of Britain's worst criminals (tax dodging sheep f*****) and other detritus and a haven for aspiring international terrorists".

The page is illustrated with a picture of Josef Fritzl draped in an Australian flag. Fritzl was sentenced to life in prison for raping his daughter and for imprisoning her and their children over a 24-year period.

Evers had argued in an email to the commission that, because his site was hosted in the US, it was covered by the country's free speech regulations and not subject to Australian laws.

Source

19 March, 2010

No right for store owners to protect their property or choose whom they will serve?

We read:

"A Fort Wayne business that posted a sign barring Burmese immigrants from entering could face a civil rights complaint.

Ricker Oil Co. president Jay Ricker has apologized for the sign posted by an employee and says the business welcomes all customers. But director Gerald Foday of Fort Wayne’s Metropolitan Human Relations Commission says he is considering filing a complaint.

The sign attempted to bar Burmese people “for sanitary reasons.” Fort Wayne is home to about 5,000 Burmese, the largest concentration in the United States. Many chew betel nut and spit the residue, which can result in red stains.

Health department spokesman John Silcox says businesses can’t banish an entire group because of an individual’s actions. [But it was NOT just one individual's actions. It was the common behavior of a group -- JR]

Source

TX: Federal court strikes down gun rights protest restrictions at college

We read:

"Late yesterday, in a striking victory for the First Amendment on campus, a federal district court in Texas ruled that a number of restrictions on students’ speech at Tarrant County College (TCC) are unconstitutional.

In his decision, U.S. District Judge Terry R. Means found that TCC’s reliance on a policy prohibiting ‘disruptive activities’ to restrict students Clayton Smith and John Schwertz from holding an ‘empty holster’ protest violated the First Amendment.”

Source

Them thar empty holsters sure is dangerous!



18 March, 2010

Racially Charged Display Sparks Debate Over Free Speech, Hate Speech?

We read:

"A racially-charged message posted on a Chicago garage is pitting a homeowner's right to free speech against a federal law that says people cannot attempt to intimidate people of different races looking to move to the neighborhood.

Michael Corrigan posted a display on his garage on the city's south side that read, "Say no to the ghetto. White Power. Mt. Greenwood, the next Englewood," and next to the words he hung a white noose, MyFoxChicago.com reported. It faced the home up for sale next to Corrigan's.

The city's Human Relations Commission called it racist and deplorable, and the city has asked federal authorities to investigate whether or not it is intimidation that violates the Fair Housing Act.

One civil rights lawyer thinks the message is disturbing but doesn't know if it violates any laws, especially since the First Amendment guarantees people the right to express even objectionable views.

Source

Swastika in Australian suburb spurs war of words



We read:

"A Daisy Hill man is refusing to take down a swastika flag on his property despite mounting concern from residents and Logan city officials. The 43-year-old, who describes himself as a “white nationalist’’ and opted not to be named, said he put the flag up as a display of white pride. He rejected any suggestion his decision was a support for Nazism and said he had not received any complaints from neighbours.

But Logan and District RSL president Ken Heard said the flag could generate bad memories for many people in the community and said it should be removed. “I think a lot of people, especially the older generation, would find it very offensive,’’ Mr Heard said.

Logan City councillor Darren Power (Division 10) backed the RSL president but said council had no way to force the flag’s removal. “I think this guy is sending the wrong message out and I think you will find that he’s upsetting the people he’s trying to support,’’ Cr Power said. “It’s got no place in Australia where we are trying to show the world that we’re a place of tolerance. I guess that tolerance is also allowing freedom of speech, but it can go too far.’’

The Queensland Anti-Discrimination Commission said it was not illegal to fly a swastika flag, but anyone who felt vilified could lodge a complaint.

Source

I may be wrong but I don't think this guy would get away with it in America. Some law would be twisted to harass him.



17 March, 2010

Amazing impertinence: Arizona Town Bans Home Bible Study

We read:

"The national Alliance Defense Fund says a town code that bars religious assemblies in private homes in the Arizona community of Gilbert is unconstitutional.

The Oasis of Truth church began meeting at Pastor Joe Sutherland's house in November and rotated homes several times a week for Bible study and fellowship.

A Gilbert code compliance officer hit the church with a violation notice after seeing a sign near a road advertising a Sunday service. A zoning administrator told the church that Bible studies, church leadership meetings and fellowship activities are not permitted in private homes.

The Alliance Defense Fund's Doug Napier says no neighbors complained. The Scottsdale-based group has filed an appeal with the town of Gilbert, contending its code violates the U.S. Constitution.

Source

A Bible study would have to be one of the most innocuous and harmless activities known to man. Attempting to ban one has got to be pure hate. The same town has previously tried to ban church signs. There must be something in the water there.



Hate speech alleged in car review

A rather amusing story from South Africa:

"The Muslim Judicial Council has accused The Times newspaper of hate speech after one of its journalists, in a review of a car, likened its silent engine to "a Muslim rodent in a synagogue".

Muslim Judicial Council spokeswoman Nabeweya Malick said the comparison was unnecessary and insulting to the Muslim community. Malick said the negative connotation would "damage and distort the image, integrity and respect for the Muslim community" and could "create prejudice and bigotry between SA's different races and religions".

The Times referred the Cape Argus to an apology it had published, which said that even though the phrase was "intended as jest", many readers had complained.

Source

16 March, 2010

Progress

Firstly, many thanks for the much-appreciated good wishes from readers in connection with my cataract operation.

It went "very, very well" according to the ophthalmic surgeon, so rapid healing will hopefully ensue. The private clinic I went to could not imaginably be better, I think. Private medicine in Australia is very, very good -- as good as public medicine is bad. Yet my private health insurer is covering 100% of the charges from the clinic and from the anesthetist but I have to pay something towards the fees of the surgeon.

I was in and out quite rapidly and experienced only minimal pain and discomfort. And even now that the anesthetic has worn off I am not in any pain.

I am writing this using my one good eye at the moment and managed to put something up yesterday on all my blogs -- though with reduced postings in some instances. You can't keep a good blogger down! I have had multiple surgical procedures of one sort or another since I started blogging but I don't think I have missed a day yet.



Canada: Levant says libel suit aims to ‘chill’ debate

We read:

"Free-speech blogger Ezra Levant has accused anti-hate activist Richard Warman of exploiting court processes to publicly "scandalize" him with "wholly irrelevant" allegations, and to discourage his "public service journalism" against human rights commissions.

The claim is in an affidavit, obtained by the National Post, that is part of Mr. Levant's defence against a libel suit brought by Mr. Warman.

A judge is to rule later this month whether Mr. Levant can examine files gathered by Mr. Warman over his decade of activism against those who post hate messages on the Internet, which includes 16 cases at the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal.

In an affidavit supporting his request for disclosure, Mr. Levant said Mr. Warman's "focus on my political views, and [his] express concern for the political reputation of non-parties to this lawsuit, such as Mr. Warman's former employer, the [Canadian Human Rights Commission], demonstrates my contention that his lawsuit is indeed a ‘SLAPP' suit -- Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation -- designed to ‘chill' public discussion of these issues."

Source

Muslim incitement to violence under scrutiny

We read:

"Authorities in Canada are investigating an anti-Semitic website that accused Jews of being behind several murderous terrorist attacks. The website's creator, York University student Salman Hossain, has been suspended from school and will face a disciplinary panel.

The Ontario Police's hate crimes and extremism unit is looking into Hossain's writings.

Hossain, a dual citizen of Bangladesh and Canada, created a site called “filthyjewishterrorists.com” on which he blamed terrorist attacks in the United States and Canada on “the mass murdering terrorist Jewish community.” He accused Jews of being behind terrorist attacks that were in fact perpetrated by Muslims, and said that the Jews carried out the attacks in order to make Muslims look bad.

He called to murder all Jews in Europe and North America if a terrorist attack were to take place in Canada.

"The university is moving on this issue in a serious fashion,” York University said in a statement. “We want all of our students, all of our community members, to be safe,” the school added.

Source

There is general agreement that incitement to violence does not have free speech protection



15 March, 2010

Seinfeld sued for calling author a "wacko"

We read:

"A kid's cookbook creator is still trying to take a bite out of Jerry Seinfeld, the New York Post reported. Missy Chase Lapine, whose suit against recipe rival Jessica Seinfeld was thrown out of federal court last year, is now taking aim at her funnyman husband in state court. She says the TV star slandered her during an appearance on the Late Show with David Letterman, when he referred to her as "angry and hysterical" and a "wacko" stalker. In a later interview with E! News, he referred to Lapine as a "nut."

Ms Lapine's state Supreme Court suit says she's none of the above - she's simply a cookbook author who suspected Seinfeld's wife of stealing her ideas and recipes for her bestseller, Deceptively Delicious...

Ms Lapine sued both Seinfelds in federal court - Jessica for ripping off her idea and Jerry for ripping her - but a judge found Jessica hadn't stolen her book, and said the slander case should be heard in state court.

Source

If everyone who got insulted went to court over it, there would be a huge traffic jam in the courts so the outcome of this could be interesting. As far as I can see, insults are protected free speech but whether any of it constitutes libel is the interesting part.



Spain: Basque leader jailed for “glorifying terrorism”

We read:

"A Spanish court on Tuesday sentenced the leader of the banned Basque separatist party Batasuna, Arnaldo Otegi, to two years in jail after being convicted on charges of glorifying terrorism. Otegi, a former spokesman for Batasuna, the political wing of the armed separatist group ETA, was tried last month over remarks he made at a 2005 rally in the Basque region in memory of a jailed ETA member, Jose Maria Sagarduy. His lawyers had argued that he was exercising his right to free speech but the High Court ruled that he made comments at the event ‘which constitute without a doubt the crime of glorifying terrorism

Source

This is probably a correct verdict under Spanish law but it might not fly in the USA








Posts from Brisbane, Australia by John Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.).


"HATE SPEECH" is free speech: The U.S. Supreme Court stated the general rule regarding protected speech in Texas v. Johnson (109 S.Ct. at 2544), when it held: "The government may not prohibit the verbal or nonverbal expression of an idea merely because society finds the idea offensive or disagreeable." Federal courts have consistently followed this. Said Virginia federal district judge Claude Hilton: "The First Amendment does not recognize exceptions for bigotry, racism, and religious intolerance or ideas or matters some may deem trivial, vulgar or profane."


Even some advocacy of violence is protected by the 1st Amendment. In Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), the U.S. Supreme Court held unanimously that speech advocating violent illegal actions to bring about social change is protected by the First Amendment "except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."


The traditional advice about derogatory speech: "Sticks and stones will break your bones but names will never hurt you". Apparently people today are not as emotionally robust as their ancestors were.


A phobia is an irrational fear, so the terms "Islamophobic" and "homophobic" embody a claim that the people so described are mentally ill. There is no evidence for either claim. Both terms are simply abuse masquerading as diagnoses and suggest that the person using them is engaged in propaganda rather than in any form of rational or objective discourse.


Leftists often pretend that any mention of race is "racist" -- unless they mention it, of course. But leaving such irrational propaganda aside, which statements really are racist? Can statements of fact about race be "racist"? Such statements are simply either true or false. The most sweeping possible definition of racism is that a racist statement is a statement that includes a negative value judgment of some race. Absent that, a statement is not racist, for all that Leftists might howl that it is. Facts cannot be racist so nor is the simple statement of them racist. Here is a statement that cannot therefore be racist by itself, though it could be false: "Blacks are on average much less intelligent than whites". If it is false and someone utters it, he could simply be mistaken or misinformed.


Whatever your definition of racism, however, a statement that simply mentions race is not thereby racist -- though one would think otherwise from American Presidential election campaigns. Is a statement that mentions dogs, "doggist" or a statement that mentions cats, "cattist"?


Was Abraham Lincoln a racist? "You and we are different races. We have between us a broader difference than exists between almost any other two races. Whether it is right or wrong I need not discuss, but this physical difference is a great disadvantage to us both, as I think your race suffer very greatly, many of them by living among us, while ours suffer from your presence. In a word, we suffer on each side. If this be admitted, it affords a reason at least why we should be separated. It is better for both, therefore, to be separated." -- Spoken at the White House to a group of black community leaders, August 14th, 1862


The spirit of liberty is "the spirit which is not too sure that it is right." and "Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it. While it lies there it needs no constitution, no law, no court to save it." -- Judge Learned Hand


Two lines below of a famous hymn that would be incomprehensible to Leftists today ("honor"? "right"? "freedom?" Freedom to agree with them is the only freedom they believe in)

First to fight for right and freedom,
And to keep our honor clean

It is of course the hymn of the USMC -- still today the relentless warriors that they always were.


It seems a pity that the wisdom of the ancient Greek philosopher Epictetus is now little known. Remember, wrote the Stoic thinker, "that foul words or blows in themselves are no outrage, but your judgment that they are so. So when any one makes you angry, know that it is your own thought that has angered you. Wherefore make it your endeavour not to let your impressions carry you away."


"Since therefore the knowledge and survey of vice is in this world so necessary to the constituting of human virtue, and the scanning of error to the confirmation of truth, how can we more safely, and with less danger, scout into the regions of sin and falsity than by reading all manner of tractates, and hearing all manner of reason?" -- English poet John Milton (1608-1674) in Areopagitica


Hate speech is verbal communication that induces anger due to the listener's inability to offer an intelligent response


Leftists can try to get you fired from your job over something that you said and that's not an attack on free speech. But if you just criticize something that they say, then that IS an attack on free speech


"It is impossible to speak in such a way that you cannot be misunderstood." -- Karl Popper


Why are Leftists always talking about hate? Because it fills their own hearts


Leftists don't have principles. How can they when "there is no such thing as right and wrong"? All they have is postures, pretend-principles that can be changed as easily as one changes one's shirt


When you have an argument with a Leftist, you are not really discussing the facts. You are threatening his self esteem. Which is why the normal Leftist response to challenge is mere abuse.


The naive scholar who searches for a consistent Leftist program will not find it. What there is consists only in the negation of the present.


The intellectual Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius (AD 121-180) could have been speaking of much that goes on today when he said: "The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."