Freedom of Speech Update - The case of the UKIP Levenshulme Poster and the thugs seeking to remove it

It will come as a surprise to no one really that freedom of speech is under intense threat in the west as of late.  If it's not Islamic extremists protesting about harmless cartoons or more or less anything else that does not submit to them.  It's the whole range of restrictions that are placed upon ourselves and our media in order to supposedly avoid 'offending' someone.  The 'someone' usually being a self - appointed and self-interested pressure group or more often than not simply some jumped up no mark.  Well how about banning electoral posters?  You know the sort you see as billboards when it comes to election time, nasty things aren't they and so inconvenient when all you really want to do is run your neighbourhood like it's your own little tin pot republic?

Yup you guessed it it is time to look at the controversy (or lack of) created by a UKIP poster in Levenshulme Manchester.  The story goes that 'several' local residents consider it racist and want it removed.  Well they ought to be told of course 'bugger off we live in a democracy' except that would not be appropriate. 

This poster must be banned according to local Marxists!

 

Why would that not be appropriate?  Well because it simply is not true, it is not true that numbers of local residents have complained, something more sinister actually happened.  What occurred was a very small and thuggish minded SWP clique sought to speak on behalf of the 'residents' and decide for them what they wanted to see or not see in 'their' area.  They started a small campaign utilising twitter to persuade the advertisers a company called Clear Channel   to pull the advert and remove the poster.  Further information on the self -appointed thought police for the area reveals them to be amongst others, a SWP (that's the Socialist Workers Party very similar to a German Political movement with almost the same name, rendered defunct in 1945) member calling herself 'bin the Condems' or something like that on twitter.  She has been named in other media as a SWP  member called Sue McPherson.  There was also the delightfully thuggish 'Rachamuffin' from Twitter she wanted to vandalise the poster and openly said so on Twitter (we're not talking Lex Luthor levels of criminal genius here).  All of this is on the above link I posted.  There was also a deceptively sweet sounding Valerie O'Riordan, she seems nice enough and does actually appear to be from Levenshulme. I'm not aware she has been appointed the Commissar for that area however, but I could be wrong.  A standard means of arguing emanates from all of them, you probably know the pattern:

1.  Cry racist if you don't like something or disagree with it, especially when it questions your crudely implanted assumptions on policy.

2.   Get it banned, free speech is so bourgeois don't cha know.

3.  Refuse to debate with anyone, just keep repeating 1 above.

4.  Assume in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary that you speak with absolute authority for the entire population it's 'your area' remember I mean a poster a bloody poster! How dare they?

5. Withdraw from communication after the above and now seek to manufacture a grievance, claim you're being picked on when in fact it is you that started the whole mess.  If necessary try to also get the poster banned by employing childishly fabricated claims of victimhood.

I love that last part, I mean you threaten wanton destruction of a legitimate election poster, but then cry wolf when someone calls you nasty names? That's after you've spent half the Easter weekend on twitter issuing insult after insult to normal people who just don't share your extreme and oppressive views, shame.

But at least there is some good news!  THE CAMPAIGN HAS FAILED! So for now the SWP termites are back in the woodwork, but they're sure to keep gnawing away! Long live Liberty folks and I wish the decent folk of Manchester whom I know so well all the best.  But watch this space  I have said before how the radical left will constantly seek to undermine our democracy, look at what else leftists in Manchester have done. 

American Comedian Bill Maher on Culture and what should not be debateable in the West... Except it is..

I think Green is a suitable font for this as I'm cross posting it from Ted Leddy's excellent blog Gubu World. Ted has posted a video clip featuring Bill Maher who gives his tuppence worth on the South Park fiasco. Maher articultes in his characteristicly punchy fashion the benefits of post-enlightenment western culture. Full text from Gubu World below(link):





One of the reasons I got turned off left wing politics was the inability or unwillingness of the left to recognise Militant political Islam as being a highly dangerous right wing philosophy that is utterly repugnant to western democratic values. This became so clear to me after spending one month in Iran conducting research on the democratisation movement in that country.

When I came back the idea of Blame Bush/Blair/Bertie for everything seemed completely hollow after seeing what the young people of Persia have to put up with. I began to feel that the blame the west for everything politics of the left is like a spoilt teenager being cheeky toward their parents because they know they can. Gradually I actually became quite appreciative of the virtues of western style liberal democracy and quite proud of the fact that I live in a free country. However I do get great satisfaction on the odd occasion that a lefty decides to put things in perspective and call it like it is. HBO's Bill Maher is probably the most left wing person on American TV. Still, the comedian has the good sense to make it clear that for all the failings of the catholic church and eccentricity of the christian right, they got nothing on the Taliban. He also stipulates that when it comes to conservative Muslims living in western democracies, there are some things that are non negotiable.

Wilders on trial for telling the truth? He should not be on trial at all..

“You have enemies? Good.That means you’ve stood up for something,sometime in your life:”
Winston Churchill



Geert Wilders is on trial currently in the Netherlands. The charges against him are completely Orwellian to say the least. It's simple really you do not have to agree with everything Wilders says to see this trial for what it is. A political show trial by an elite ruling class that wishes to decide what Dutch people can and do say (and therefore think) for them. It is a travesty for democracy. Wilders may be a poor choice of martyr for some. But martyr he will become and the likelihood is this trial will boost his already soaring ratings. Personally I hope so, I think what he said in Fitna was nothing. He merely directly quoted the words and actions of others. Those others being Islamic jihadists. Either way read the blog piece by Douglas Murray for a good take on this politicised show trial. Murray is spot on. Quick note from a Libertarian, KEEP POLITICS OUT OF THE COURT ROOM. Full text from Murray below:

There is nothing hyperbolic in stating that a trial which has just started in Holland will have unparalleled significance for the future of Europe. It is not just about whether our culture will survive, but whether we are even allowed to state the fact that it is being threatened.

The trial of Geert Wilders has garnered hardly any attention in the mainstream press here. Fortunately the blogosphere can correct some of this.

Wilders is a Dutch MP and leader of Holland’s fastest-growing party, the Party for Freedom. Just a few years ago he was the sole MP for his party. The latest polls show that his party could win the biggest number of seats of any party in Holland when the voters next go to the polls.

His stances have clearly chimed with the Dutch people. They include an end to the era of mass immigration, an end to cultural relativism, and an end to the perceived suborning of European values to Islamic ones. For saying this, and more, he has for many years had to live under round-the-clock security protection. Which you would have thought proves the point to some extent.

Now the latest attempt of the Dutch ruling class to keep Wilders from office has begun. Last week, apparently because of the number of complaints they have received (trial by vote anyone?) the trial of Wilders began.

The Dutch courts charge that Wilders ‘on multiple occasions, at least once, (each time) in public, orally, in writing or through images, intentionally offended a group of people, i.e. Muslims, based on their religion’.

I’m sorry? Whoa there, just a minute. The man’s on trial because he ‘offended a group of people’? I get offended by all sorts of people. I get offended by very fat people. I get offended by very thick people. I get offended by very sensitive people. I get offended by the crazy car-crash of vowels in Dutch verbs. But I don’t try to press charges.

Yet, crazily, this is exactly what is going on now in a Dutch courtroom. If found guilty of this Alice-in-Wonderland accusation of ‘offending a group of people’, Wilders faces up to two years in prison.

If anyone doubts the surreal nature of the proceedings now going on they should simply look through the summons which is available in an English translation here. It shows that Wilders is on trial for his film Fitna. And for various things he has said in articles and interviews in the Dutch press.

Now some people liked Fitna and some people didn’t. That’s a matter of choice. But by any previous interpretation it is not the job of courts in democratic countries to become film-critics. In fact it would create a very bad precedent. I thought the latest Alec Baldwin film stank. But I don’t think (though the temptation lingers) Baldwin should go to prison for it.

I’ve seen Fitna a number of times. Recently in the House of Lords, at a meeting Wilders couldn’t attend because our then Home Secretary temporarily decided he shouldn’t even come into this country. And I’ve just watched it again. And you can do so, too. It keeps getting pirated on YouTube but I think this is a good link here.

Parts of Fitna – which is a compilation of documentary footage – are very disturbing. And very offensive indeed. The clips of Muslim clerics calling for the murder of infidels. Very offensive. The clips of Muslims holding banners saying ‘God bless Hitler’. Very offensive. The clip of a three-year-old Muslim girl indoctrinated and brain-washed to describe Jews as ‘Apes and Pigs’. Very offensive. The passage of the Koran, Surah 47, verse 4: ‘Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers in fight, smite at their necks; At length, when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly on them.’ Very offensive.

Just to confirm – I find all these things very offensive. But Wilders didn’t say them. He is being tried for pointing out the fact that some – in some cases many – Muslims do. If there are to be prosecutions they should be of the clerics and leaders who advocate this nightmarish version of Islam. But not of Wilders.

There are quotes from Wilders in the summons, though. It states for instance that he has said, and he has (I love the detective-work the court implies when citing op-eds from national newspapers): ‘Those Moroccan boys are really violent. They beat up people because of their sexual orientation. I have never used violence.’ This is true. As a number of gay Dutch men and women can attest, Muslim youths are behind a rise in homophobic attacks in what used to be the most gay-friendly country in the world. Bruce Bawer and others have written about this at length. It is very disturbing. It is also a fact. There is no sanity at all in a court trying a man for saying something true.

Wilders is also being tried for saying things which some Muslims deem to be rude about the Koran. Another dangerous precedent. Will the Dutch courts now come after Ricky Gervais for the rude things he says about the Bible in his show Animals (on sale in Holland)? Why the special laws for hurt Muslim feelings? Just wait till the others get on the band-wagon! There won’t be room in the courts to prosecute the murderers and muggers. They’ll be too full up with the religious. Dutch Calvinist pastors madly petitioning for the extradition of Billy Connolly.

The whole thing is so farcical that it would be funny. If it weren’t for the fact that it is real. The most popular elected politician in Holland is on trial for saying things which the Dutch people are clearly, in large part, in agreement with. Things which, even if you don’t agree with them, must be able to be said.

Whichever way the verdict goes, it can’t do anything but good for Wilders’s poll ratings. But it is a terrible day for democracy. A political class so intent on criminalising the opinions of its own people cannot last very much longer.

Who likes freedom of Speech? Not these guys, OIC Seeking to outlaw criticism of Islam at UN...

These guys are pleased at the OIC proposals.


From the WEA the Organisation of Islamic Conferences (a multi national Islamic bloc vote at the UN), attempts are being made to outlaw defamation of Islam. Why does this matter? Well for one thing it's an earnest attempt to introduce aspects of Sharia law. Furthermore it would give legal sanction to attempts to stifle criticism of Islam and the problems we face as a consequence of political Islam. Furthermore we should be free to state and honestly discuss all areas concerning religions. By that I mean for instance:





1. In parts of the Islamic world sexual abuse of children is institutionalised by marriage. This follows the example of Muhammad who 'married' a six year old girl whilst he was 54. (according to Hadith).





2. Islam's scriptures mandate warfare against 'non believers' including Jews and Christians until they submit to Islam, (Qur'an 9,29).

3. Islam suppresses women and condones violence against them if they are disobedient. (Qur'an 4, 34).

Now why not have frank and honest discussions about the above? Not according to the OIC you should not.

The WEA article:











The OIC & the UN: Islamophobia and "defamation of religion"
Nov 15, 2008
By: WEA RLC Principal Researcher and Writer, Elizabeth KendalTHE OIC & THE UN: ISLAMOPHOBIA AND "DEFAMATION OF RELIGION"(OIC: Organisation of Islamic Conference)Durban I -- the UN's first World Conference on Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance -- which was held in Durban, South Africa, in early September 2001 ended with a walkout over its virulent anti-Semitism. Yet sadly it now seems clear that the Durban Review Conference (or Durban II), which will be held in Geneva in April 2009, is shaping up to be even worse.As a prelude to Durban II, a Second Preparatory Session of the 20-state Preparatory Committee -- of which Libya has been elected chair with Cuba, Pakistan and Iran as vice-chairs -- was held in Geneva from 6 to 17 October 2008. The resulting "Draft Outcome Document for the Durban Review Conference 2009" is now available on the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) website at LINK 1.It is clear from the draft document, as well as from reports emanating from the subsequent 63rd UN General Assembly meeting held in Geneva during the first week of November, that a central focus of Durban II will be "Islamophobia", which is being presented as "a new form of racism".Muslims, the draft declaration asserts, are at dire risk of a racial "holocaust" due to "a new form of racism" -- "Islamophobia" -- which is incited through "defamation of Islam".The draft declaration recommends that local, national and international laws and human rights covenants be reviewed and amended as necessary so that "defamation of Islam" is made a criminal offence, losing the protection it has long enjoyed under the "pretext" of "freedom of expression, counter terrorism or national security". It recommends that legal instruments be established to punish offenders -- that is, those who "defame" Islam by associating it with violence, human rights abuses or terrorism.Anne Bayefsky, a York University professor and human rights lawyer who attended the Second Preparatory Session in Geneva, warns: "This is the new dimension of Durban 2, which in many ways makes it a greater threat than Durban 1. It's really setting up a war of ideas, that has rough implications, between Islamic states and everybody else. . . . Durban 1 was called an assault on Israel; a demonisation of Israel as racist and analogous to Apartheid South Africa. But in addition, Durban 2 is an assault on freedom of expression and other essential democratic rights and freedoms." (Link 2)---------------------------------The draft declaration has built on the 17 August 2007 report by Mr Doudou Diene, the then UN Special Rapporteur on Contemporary Forms of Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance, and the OIC's Observatory of Islamophobia.For background see:UN Human Rights Council: Watershed days. 18 Sept 2007WEA RLC News & Analysis by Elizabeth Kendalhttp://www.worldevangelicals.org/commissions/rlc/reports/articles.htm?id=1411 (This posting gives a thorough critique of Doudou Diene's August 2007 report and considers its implications in terms of the Islamisation of international human rights.)ANDOIC: Eliminating "defamation" of Islam. 25 March 2008WEA RLC News & Analysis by Elizabeth Kendalhttp://www.worldevangelicals.org/commissions/rlc/reports/articles.htm?id=1725 (This posting analyses the OIC's Observatory of Islamophobia which was launched at the OIC Dakar Summit in March 2008. The Observatory of Islamophobia, which is built on Doudou Diene's August 2007 report to the UNHRC, must be seen in the context of the OIC's "Ten Year Program of Action" through which it aims to address the most "prominent challenges facing the Muslim world today". This posting also presents scenarios and means through which the OIC might fulfill its goal of establishing international instruments to punish -- under the pretext of peace and human rights -- those whom they charge with inciting Islamophobia through "defamation" of Islam.)----------------------------------------Canada and Israel have already pulled out of Durban II while several other Western states have threatened to boycott -- most notably Denmark. As reported by Jette Elbaek Maressa in Jyllands-Posten (28 Oct 2008), Danish foreign minister Per Stig Moller told his Arab partners during a round trip to the Middle East that if the Organisation of Islamic Conference did not withdraw its proposal to make criticism of religion equivalent to racism, then Western countries will stay away from Durban II. "If the OIC pushes through this draft resolution, they shall not expect European or Western countries to be present at the table," he said. (Link 3)The Non-Government Organisation "UN Watch" has released a paper on the Durban II Draft Declaration. Entitled "Shattering the Red Lines: The Durban II Draft Declaration", it examines a "small selection of the 646 provisions of the Durban II draft declaration, highlighting several that breach the EU's red lines" (i.e. the lines the EU determined should not be crossed).In its opening summary, UN Watch charges that the draft declaration seeks "to distort human rights laws for the purposes of Islamic censorship" by "inserting a prohibition against 'defamation of religion' designed to restrict free speech and impose the censorship of Islamic anti-blasphemy laws".UN Watch's paper provides a clear, thorough and yet concise overview and analysis of the most contentious elements of the Durban II draft declaration. It is recommended reading. (Link 4)63rd UN GENERAL ASSEMBLYReliefweb has published a report on the 63rd General Assembly that was held in Geneva subsequent to the Durban Review Conference Second Preparatory Session. LINK 5The report describes representatives from Egypt, Sudan, Libya and Pakistan all expressing great concern over the threat posed by this "new form of racism" -- Islamophobia -- which is incited by "defamation of religion". According to the Libyan representative, freedom of speech is not the issue -- at issue is the "misuse" of that right.The representative from Iran told the assembly that modern-day racism is no longer based on supposed inequality between races, but is based on culture, nationality or religion. He claimed that xenophobic acts against migrants, refugees and asylum seekers; defamation of religions; religious intolerance and racial profiling are all expressions of this new form of racism which seeks legitimacy and protection under various pretexts such as combating terrorism.According to the representative from Saudi Arabia, Islam rejects all forms of discrimination and so in Saudi Arabia there are legal provisions to protect all the rights of all persons regardless of race, religion, status or gender.Various free, multi-racial Western democracies (a minority in the UN) denounced racism while making strong and clear defences of human rights including religious liberty and freedom of expression.The representative from France (speaking on behalf of the European Union [EU]) reminded the assembly that the EU had supported the organisation of a Review Conference as long as certain conditions were met and certain lines not crossed. He said that the primary goal should be the full implementation of existing normative framework and that new norms should only be drawn up if they were deemed necessary, were subject to a broad consensus and did not go back on universal achievements by restricting the current scope of human rights.He expressed the European Union's concern that the "thought process" on the possible creation of complementary norms was moving in a direction that could reduce the level of human rights promotion and protection. According to Reliefweb, the representative from France said the EU would "not allow the United Nations principles to be undermined" and would work in accordance with the principles that had been set out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. He said the Review Conference should concentrate on the implementation of the existing framework without restricting any human rights, establishing any hierarchy among victims, or excluding any one group. As well, the review conference should show how promoting human rights, especially the freedom of speech, could play an important role in fighting racism.The representative from the USA expressed concern at the trend of conflating issues of racism and religion which he said were two distinct issues. He likewise asserted that the cure for intolerance is more dialogue, not less.The representative from Israel regretted that alliances had trumped ideals and warned that nations with a genuine desire to promote peace should guard against the co-opting of legitimate language and ideas by racist demagogues. He expressed concern that Durban II risked becoming itself a platform of racial incitement, and he feared that words might quickly turn to actions.--------------------------The OIC formulated its Ten Year Program of Action (TYPOA) in Makkah in December 2005. Item VI on the TYPOA is "Combating Islamophobia". The OIC determined to do this by means of: 1) establishing an Observatory on Islamophobia tasked with monitoring Islamophobia and "defamation" of Islam and issuing annual reports; 2) getting the UN to adopt an international resolution on Islamophobia, and call on all States to enact laws to counter it; and 3) establishing international legal instruments to enforce anti-defamation laws and deliver deterrent punishments to those charged with inciting Islamophobia through defamation of Islam.The Observatory of Islamophobia was launched in Dakar in March 2008 and the UN has been passing resolutions against Islamophobia and "defamation" of religion ever since the OIC and Arab League-incited Cartoon Intifada of February 2006. All that is left on the OIC's agenda for combating Islamophobia is the legitimisation and implementation of national and international laws and legal instruments to punish offenders. It looks like Durban II might be a step in this direction.By E N KendalLinks1) Draft Outcome Document for the Durban Review Conference 2009http://www2.ohchr.org/english/issues/racism/DurbanReview/session2-documentation.htm2) Durban 2: New site, same debacle.Kevin Libin, National Post (Canada) 25 October 2008http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=9070043) Danish foreign minister threatens Western boycott of Durban IIJyllands-Posten 28 Oct 2008By Jette Elbaek Maressahttp://europenews.dk/en/node/154734) Shattering the Red Lines: The Durban II Draft DeclarationSelected provisions of United Nations draft published at Second Preparatory SessionBy UN WATCH http://www.unwatch.org/ (Oct. 2008).5) Strengthening respect for human rights key for preventing conflict, stabilizing post-conflict situations, Third Committee told.GA/SHC/3933Sixty-third General AssemblyThird Committee33rd & 34th Meeting (AM & PM)Hears from Special Rapporteur on Racism, Chair of Mercenaries Working Group; Religious Defamation, Progress towards Durban Review Conference among Issueshttp://www.reliefweb.int/rw/rwb.nsf/db900sid/SHIG-7L3D9X?OpenDocument