Wednesday, 23 November 2011


Here is a great article about the history of hate speech laws. It shows they have always had their most vigorous support in undemocratic states, first in the old Communist bloc then the OIC and now, tragically but appropriately, the EU.
The strange thing is that despite the Western European fight against Article 20 of the ICCPR in the mid-1960s, hate-speech legislation enjoyed a significant increase in Western Europe during the 1970s, following the recommendations of the ICCPR. After 1989 and the disappearance of Soviet power, you might have expected that European support to this old piece of totalitarian Soviet heritage would have vanished. But now a new faction of countries in international organizations was ready to take over the role of the Communist bloc: the OIC, the Organization of the Islamic Conference. In the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the OIC in 1990, UN human rights were explicitly placed under the sharia as a source of legislation, and regarding free speech in particular, its Article 21 stated that "everyone shall have the right to express his opinion freely in such manner as would not be contrary to the principles of the Shari'ah." The OIC initially claimed free speech must never give free rein to blasphemy, and from around the millennium, the organization intoned a coordinated policy in UN organizations like the Human Rights Commission/Council and, after 2005, the General Assembly in an attempt to introduce criminalization of so-called "defamation of Islam" or, more generally, "defamation of religions" as additional human rights. During the first decade of the 2000s, such declarations were passed every year by a majority of OIC and third-world countries—and with increasingly severe demands to make criminalization of such defamation an obligation of UN member countries, to make UN special rapporteurs scrutinize the legislations of each member state to establish whether all member states did in fact obey the resolutions. Even if keeping the majority, such resolutions have steadily lost votes over the recent eight years—and this year, the OIC seems to be changing strategy in order to support and extend existing anti-hate speech legislation based on the ICCPR Article 20 in the West. Thus, the most recent resolution in the HRC refers to the wording of this article, adding even more vague crimes such as "derogatory stereotyping, negative profiling and stigmatization of persons based on their religion or belief," just like it "deplores any advocacy of discrimination . . . on the basis of religion or belief." This results in the farcical consequence that many OIC states may now file complaints against European democracies during the Universal Periodic Review of the member states in the HRC. Thus on May 2, 2011, Egypt, Indonesia, Malaysia, Bangladesh, and Pakistan complained that Danish hate-speech laws were not enforced to a sufficient degree—countries with no impressive human rights record.
Source: Telos Press

Please read the article in full. There's one point where I disagree with the author, though.
Unlike the situation in the 1960s, the totalitarian fight against free speech in international legislation is now supported by a new pressure stemming from violent radicals and terrorists in the street. Recurrent religious pressure and terror attacks against publishers, newspapers, writers, journalists, translators, draughtsmen, and others now form a militant support to the legal struggle within international organizations. And right-wing terrorists like Anders Breivik in Norway or the Zwickau group in Germany also demand curtailment of free speech.

Did Breivik really demand curtailment of free speech? I can't say I've read every word of his manifesto but, in the parts I have read, I don't recall coming across any demands for the curtailment of free speech; rather, the opposite.

And I fear the author has completely misinterpreted the statement made by the Zwickau group (of Kebab Murders fame). He elaborates on this in another part of the article:
The German so-called "Döner killings" of Turkish immigrants were finally resolved and a neo-Nazi group in Zwickau claimed responsibility. In their posthumous manifesto, the two central members claimed they fought, among other things, for the radical change of freedom of opinion.

By "posthumous manifesto" I assume he means the 15-minute video they made. I'm not aware of any other manifesto. In this video they made the following statement:
"The National Socialist Underground is a network of comrades with the principle 'Deeds instead of words'. Until fundamental changes in politics, press police and freedom of opinion have taken place, the activities will be continued."

The author of the article mentioned above is assuming that they are here arguing against freedom of opinion. Although the statement is ambiguous, it seems to me the much more natural interpretation is that they are demanding the right TO freedom of opinion, not calling for it to be repressed.

In their view, and in Breivik's, the countries of Europe have been suffused with a kind of Left Totalitarianism which regards only one kind of thinking as acceptable. Alternative viewpoints are repressed from the public sphere. The criminalisation of opinion through hate speech legislation denies them the right to participate in democratic politics, leaving them to vent their opinions through violence instead. And it is the repression of free speech that makes them feel justified in doing this.

Europe is being rapidly islamised. Its people are increasingly conscious of what is happening, despite the best efforts of the media to disinform them, and increasingly angry about it. This anger will continue to grow in line with the Muslim population. And it will seek political expression. If it cannot find it because of hate speech laws that prevent these concerns effectively being articulated, or states abusing their power to shut down dissident political parties, then it will be vented through violence.

Massive, disruptive change is coming to Europe. Our governments don't get to decide that. All they get to decide is whether the change comes about by talking or by fighting.

9 comments:

Chrysostomos said...

You're absolutely right, and the ironic thing is that many in the left (usually inexperienced, liberal students or middle-class ivory tower types) believe it is the left which is the great upholder of freedom but in reality it's the opposite. Socialism needs the curtailment of free speech and free thought because if people start discussing socialist policies such as mass immigration or the radical redistribution of wealth they would then discuss ways of bringing down the regime and so it wouldn't last very long.

The Right and conservatives are portrayed in the media and in films as being curmudgeonly, crusty, reactionary, anti-science, anti-freedom, and totalitarian but the left/socialists share many of these qualities; for instance, in climate change the left refuses to consider any evidence that points to the lack of any change in global temperatures. The original left, the Jacobins of revolutionary France, were positively evil by modern standards; like the Soviets they had purges, and even a putsch (like the National Socialists), not to mention the Terror which killed many thousands of people.

Unfortunately if you're anti-socialist people automatically assume you're extreme Right-wing and/or conservative (as if that's a bad thing in itself).

Guess which party had these demands in their manifesto:

13. We demand the nationalisation of all public companies

14. We demand profit sharing by large companies

15. We demand generous improvement in the old age pension system

16. We demand all large department stores be placed under the control of the local authority.

17. We demand creation of a law which would allow the confiscation of property without compensation if it were in the national interest.

Ralph Lynn said...

Mass immigration is about changing us. It is international leftisms greatest weapon against the hated European man with his bourgoise law, family values, notions of liberty etc.

Cultural marxism has worked. The de-culture project has worked. The eu power grab has worked. The UN communitarian network is established throughout the world. I'd say massive change has already occurred and the powers that be will welcome the people's rebellion. It will usher in the next stage of the project.

We are really in a bind.

Ralph Lynn said...

Yes Chrys, conservative thinking is a fringe philosophy! Just as I have cast off just about every last vestige of the liberal, post-modern spirit of the age - there is nowhere to go. Leaving the liberal bubble, one sees leftism everywhere. It stinks to high heaven.

Ralph Lynn said...

Bound as we are by the crushing madness. I do have hope.

The eu could well over reach itself and collapse.

One or two administrations (secretly conservative and loyal to their own) are elected who leave the eu unilaterally, tearing up globalisation plans for good measure.

Common people rise up, demonstrate and do not budge until the sorry excrescences that pass for leadership are gone.

Anonymous said...

""everyone shall have the right to express his opinion freely in such manner as would not be contrary to the principles of the Shari'ah.""

- Sums it up. In other words, no free speech, unless you want to do dawa.

Anonymous said...

There's a VERY INTERESTING comment recently issued by the UN. It says that blasphemy is a human right. There's also a great review in the magazine 'religion dispatches". It also mentiones Lars Hedegaard in Denmark and Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff in Austria. Maybe you should write about it, as it fundamentally affects all of us.

Here's the links:
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrc/docs/GC34.pdf

http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/politics/4985/united_nations_affirms_the_human_right_to_blaspheme/


I love your great blog.

Anonymous said...

Just came to think of something about de-culturalization

What purpose could threesome "culture"-project via public TV-channels serve?

Preparing the minds for up to four wives?

http://www.nrk.no/programmer/sider/trekant/

Anonymous said...

Oslo, 2010: 22 cars burnt. 0 cases solved
Oslo, 2011: 42 cars burnt. 0 cases solved*

http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/iriks/42-biler-trolig-ptent---ingen-saker-oppklart--6705116.html

*As of 10 October

شات دردشة بنات مصر شات مصريه said...

شات بنات مصر
شات بنت مصر
chat
شات بنات مصر
شات بنات مصر
شات مصرى
شات مصرى
شات مصري
بنات مصر
دردشة
شات بنت
شات
شات
شات
شات مصر
شات مصرية

شات مصرى
شات بنات مصر
شات مصرى
بنات مصر
دردشة
شات مصرى
شات بنات
شات مصر
شات مصرية
شات مصر
شات مصرية

شات مصرية
شات مصريه


شات بنات مصر
http://moon-masr.blogspot.com/

شات سكس

Search

Loading...

Blog Archive

Powered by Blogger.

Blog Archive

Total Pageviews