Muslims are attacking our freedom of speech
simple.lan...@gmail.com
Freedom of speech is under attack. Let us count the ways.
The first and most obvious: Those who criticize militant Islamists --
from novelist Salman Rushdie to Danish cartoonists to memoirist Ayaan
Hirsi Ali -- are routinely threatened with deadly violence. It would
be black humor to say this is having a chilling effect.
The second is "political correctness." On campuses and within Western
governments it is increasingly taboo to label terrorists who slaughter
in the name of Islam "Islamist terrorists." In Canada, "human rights
commissions" attempt to enforce this taboo by putting such writers as
Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant on trial for the "crime" of expressing
opinions that offend Islamic grievance groups -- and also for quoting
Islamists accurately and thereby casting them in an unfavorable light.
If that's not Orwellian, what is?
But it is the third approach that could be most consequential for
Americans. It's known as "libel tourism" and here's how it works: A
book published in the United States names an individual abroad who
supports terrorist groups. That individual -- for the sake of
discussion, let's say he's a Saudi petro-billionaire with a home in
London -- goes online and orders a few copies, which arrive in the
mail. He takes those books to a British attorney who files a lawsuit
complaining that his client has been libeled.
The billionaire knows it will be much easier to prevail in the U.K.
than it would be in an American court, where the First Amendment and
decades of case law provide free speech protections. (Under English
law, by contrast, the burden in a libel case is on the defendant to
prove his innocence -- which can be impossible if he's been using
confidential sources or even just sources who don't want to cross an
ocean and take part in a courtroom battle.)
The legal costs are chump change for the billionaire, while few
nonfiction writers command similar resources. If the writer chooses
not to spend months living in a hotel and fighting it out in court,
the case will be forfeited and he will be hit with a "default
judgment." If he doesn't pay, he'll never again be able to set foot in
the U.K. and other countries that enforce British court judgments.
But more important is this: The message gets sent, loud and clear, to
journalists, scholars and publishers, that researching and writing
about terrorists and those who enable them is verboten -- even in
America.
Publisher Roger Kimball has noted that when he was about to publish
"Andy McCarthy's Willful Blindness: A Memoir of the Jihad," he
received a message from a distributor working in the U.K. and Canada
asking if there were "any references to Saudis and terrorist(s) in the
book" as that "could potentially create libel lawsuits as it could
offend Saudis living in England and this has happened with many other
U.S. publications and we do not want to be jeopardized in selling this
book." No, no -- we wouldn't want that, would we?
Kimball was not intimidated but some writers, no doubt, have been, and
other publishers have not just turned down "risky" books but pulled
volumes from shelves and destroyed them following threats of legal
action.
What can be done to protect Americans from having our speech
restricted by foreign terrorist financiers, foreign lawyers, foreign
judges and their toadies?
Representatives Peter King (R-N.Y.) and Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) have
introduced the Free Speech Protection Act of 2008, which would give
Americans who find themselves in the situation described above a
"federal cause of action" to sue right back -- and to claim legal
fees, costs and significant damage awards as well if a U.S. court
concludes that the foreign suit was "a scheme to suppress First
Amendment rights."
What's more, the bill would provide "expedited discovery": The
plaintiff would be compelled to disclose information and documents
relevant to the charges -- something few investors in terrorist
enterprises are eager to do.
On the Senate side, the bill is being shepherded by Senators Joseph
Lieberman, (DI-Conn.), Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), and Charles Schumer (D-
N.Y.). What obstacles are preventing this bill from being passed into
law? Let us count them.
First, although there is bipartisan support for this approach, not
enough backers -- so far at least -- are from the majority party: Of
ten sponsors on the House side, only one is a Democrat. Second, we're
deep into the presidential campaign season, a time when very little
moves on Capitol Hill. Third, never underestimate the ability of the
Saudis, their lobbyists, their allies and their courtiers, to kill
that which interferes with their interests.
The Latest Breaking News: Hitler is still DEAD.
> Freedom of speech is under attack.
Sure is. By substituting hate for free flow of factual, correct and
balanced information.
Primarily by the dumping of endless targeted propaganda which distorts
the mind
of the gullible masses, or you strongly hope!
> The first and most obvious: Those who criticize militant Islamists
Does the exercise of free speech limits itself of endless criticism of
a single groups of people?
How about criticism of all that is wrong in society? No? Is that too
uncomfortable for you?
.......................................................................
*** DO NOT FEED THE POLISH TROLL ***
Simple is a self declared Zionist extremist troll.
This ex-Solidarnosc shit stirrer moron, who is now back in his old
country while still working for undisclosed foreign powers, cuts and
pastes
extremist propaganda spam from very dubious and compromised sources.
He trolls currently in 129 newsgroups.
Since July 2008 he has posted over 2100 propaganda hate messages.
His average Google score (currently over 3550 ratings) has remained
"one star" (extremely poor quality).
Simple generally disregard good nettiquette by persistent spamming
newsgroups
where members have already voiced discontent about his activities.
As a rule he intentionally ignores published FAQs governing
the nature of posted material which should be regarded as off topic in
a given NG.
.....
His propaganda focuses on:
1)
Denial of the failure of the joint US & Israeli
neoconservative / Zionist extremist world politics
2)
Denial of the responsibility of the US for the increasing crisis in
several geopolitical hot spots world wide.
3)
Denial of the effect of right wing extremist conservative ideologies
for
the present sorry state of the planet.
4)
Denial of the responsibility of the capitalist economic system for the
same.
5)
Denial of the fact that fanaticism, mass psychosis, and the
sustainance of
archaic/anachronistic cultural, social and political practices ARE
inherent to ALL currently practiced religions on the planet not just
that particular
one he singles out for blame in support of his political agenda.
6)
Dredging the sewers of society to find incidental incriminating
material in
hope to focus negative attention on a targeted group of people.
(I.e. creating a negative stereotype just like the Nazis did
in case of the Gypsies, Jews and political leftists before
the start of the Second World War)
7)
Writing off as inconsequential criminal activity committed by
individuals
NOT belonging to the singled out cultural, religious and political
groups.
-----
Ördög
(The friendly Hungarian Devil in service of aus.politics and Usenet)
Either the neocons go or civilisation does!
Topaz
By Luke O'Farrell
"We propose that it be made an offence to download material from the
internet that could incite racial or religious hatred." When it was
claimed that the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) made that sinister,
totalitarian proposal in September 2006, you could understand what
George W. Bush meant when he said: "They hate us for our freedoms."
Staunch in defense of freedom, Britain's conservative commentariat
rushed to condemn the MCB. "Free speech is the bedrock of a free
society!" they thundered. "Any group that seeks to undermine it has no
place in a democracy. If Muslims don't like Britain's proud,
centuries-old tradition of free speech, they know what they can do:
get out!"
Shamefully, however, many defenders of Western freedom against
Islamist tyranny seem to have forgotten what the MCB said in 2006. If
you're one of them, here's an extract from The Times to refresh your
memory:
The All-Party Parliamentary Inquiry into Anti-Semitism was set up last
year. None of the 14 members of the panel is Jewish, but evidence was
taken from across the Jewish community. The report proposes that it be
made an offence to download material from the internet that could
incite racial or religious hatred. Drawing on the view of the
Macpherson report that a racist act is defined by its victim, not by
whether a perpetrator considers himself racist, anti-Semitism is
defined in the report as "any remark, insult or act, the purpose or
effect of which is to violate a Jewish person's dignity or create an
intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment
for him". (Loc. cit., 7th September 2006)
Oh dear, so it wasn't the MCB who wanted to turn us into a
police-state after all: it was the philosemitic politicians who
conducted the All-Party Parliamentary Inquiry into Anti-Semitism.
Whoever would have guessed it? Anyone who knows about Jews and free
speech, that's who. If Jews have power and influence, they start
working to take away free speech. It's no use arguing that some Jews
support free speech and some white goyim oppose it: the average effect
of the two groups is perfectly clear. It was whites who created free
speech in the West and it is Jews who are taking it away. Was there
any popular support for Britain's race laws, introduced in the 1960s
and steadily harshened ever since? No, there wasn't, but what does the
will of the people matter in a democracy? The Board of Jewish Deputies
wanted the race laws and got them. The Jewish Anti-Defamation League
would like identical laws in the United States; so far, thanks to the
evil white males who created the First Amendment, it hasn't gotten
them. Canadians haven't been so lucky, as the neo-con Mark Steyn has
discovered. He's gotten into trouble for saying things Muslims don't
like, but let's give him his due: he's admitted that Jews aren't
entirely blameless:
Submission from the Board of Deputies of British Jews
The Board of Deputies of British Jews welcomes the opportunity to make
this submission to the Select Committee on Religious Offences. The
Board is the representative body and voice of the British Jewish
community. It was founded in 1760. The Jewish community is covered by
the provisions of the Race Relations Acts. The Board is generally
satisfied with the format of the current legislation following the
amendments to Part 3 of the Public Order Act in the Criminal Justice
and Public Order Act 1994, the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and the
Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001. The Malicious Communications Act
1998 and its subsequent amendment offer further protection. Together
these have removed the legal and linguistic barriers which previously
had hampered prosecutions.
The UK is now faced with a growth in inter-religious friction, sparked
in large measure by conflict in the Middle East and the Indian
subcontinent. This has led to the dissemination of propaganda
deliberately attacking Jews qua Jews by Muslims. The Sikh and Hindu
communities have similarly been targeted. We are in touch with
representative bodies within these communities and can provide
examples of such incitement. The Board of Deputies welcomes the
proposal to introduce new laws to combat incitement to religious
hatred, but notes that this must be matched by the political will to
prosecute offenders. Otherwise any new powers risk becoming as
ineffective as the existing laws against incitement to racial hatred.
"It's not enough, already! Ve vont more laws! No free speech for ze
vicked goyim!" And Mark Steyn isn't tackling another vital question:
that of how Muslims got into the West in such large numbers to join
the Jew-initiated, Jew-continued assault on free speech. Was there any
popular support for mass immigration by Muslims in Britain, for
example? No, there wasn't: there was massive popular opposition. But
what does the will of the people matter in a democracy? Britain is run
for the benefit of those who fund its political parties: men like
"Lord" Levy, his pals from Jewish Care, and David Abrahams, whose
excuse for conspiring to make secret payments to New Labour was that
he wanted to avoid the appearance of "a Jewish conspiracy". That's
what democracy means in Britain: Jews pay, pols obey. Want thought
crime laws? You got 'em! Want mass immigration? You got it! Want war
in Iraq? You got that too!
Stone is president of the Jewish Council for Racial Equality
Stone wants to keep "racism" high on the agenda because he wants to
keep bashing whites. How racist is Britain? Very racist - against
whites. When you trace the sources of the "Hammer Honky!" religion,
you find that Jews are there every time, controlling, "advising",
passing laws to suppress white dissent. Free speech is indeed the
bedrock of a free society, which is why free societies and Jews don't
mix. Those are the joys of Judeocracy and they'll keep on coming until
we take our societies back.
Full article at
http://www.heretical.com/ofarrell/joyim.html
http://www.ihr.org/ http://www.natvan.com