Category: Free Speech

Both Free Speech and Academic Freedom Under Legal threat

Voltaire once said:  “I disagree with you but I will defend to the death your right to say it”.  There are not many Voltaires around these days.  As most readers here will know, an Australian university professor has recently come under fire for opposing the intake of refugees from Sudan into Australia.  He made his comments initially in a newspaper but he has elaborated his views in a sufficiently sound way for them to be accepted for publication in an Australian academic law journal.  Read on (excerpt):

“A lawyer for Australia’s Sudanese community has threatened a Victorian university with legal action if it publishes an article by a controversial Sydney-based law professor.  Called `Rethinking the White Australia Policy?, the 6,800-word article was written by Associate Professor Andrew Fraser, who’s been banned from teaching at Sydney’s Macquarie University after making racist remarks. The Canadian-born academic wrote a letter to his local suburban newspaper in July, claiming Australia was becoming a Third World colony by allowing non-white immigration…. Lawyer George Newhouse today warned Deakin University to scrap plans to publish Prof Fraser’s contentious views in its next law journal. ``I am shocked that a university would even want to publish something along these lines,’’ he said. ``I put the university on notice that if they repeat the racial vilification, a claim for compensation may be made against the university and the editors that publish or republish this poison.’’  Mr Newhouse said he had already commenced proceedings on behalf of the Sudanese Darfurian community in the Australian Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission.”

Source

The university that publishes the journal does not seem to be caving in to the threat so far but the whole thing is a good example of how only those things that accord with the official “line” can safely be said today.  Stalin would approve.

Posted by jonjayray on Thursday, September 15, 2005 at 01:48 AM in Free Speech
Comments (8) | Tell-a-Friend

Donating to the BNP

David has mentioned to me his opinion that the BNP have very little money and their recent enounter with HM Customs and the Kent police have apparently left them with a considerable legal bill.  I do NOT subscribe to the BNP platform but a number of things persuaded me that I should donate something to help them out.

For a start, they are primarily a working class party and my own working class origins (my father was a lumberjack but was more of a natural gentleman than I will ever be) give me some insight to how many of the BNP members must feel.  And although I myself am very pro-Asian, I can understand something of the horror they must feel at seeing their old communities overrun by what to them are alien and hostile hordes.  And I think it is right and proper that their feelings about that should be heard.

But as we know, the British establishment does everything it can to suppress and silence them and that REALLY grates on my libertarian instincts.  I have blogged on the recent example of such attempted suppression here and in a number of other places.

So being someone who usually matches deeds to words, I see it as right and proper to help what I see as those whose voice is being suppressed.  I regret that, as a foreigner I was allowed under British law to donate only 200 pounds but I invite others here who DO share the ideals of the BNP to follow my example.  I have often accused those who frequent this blog of being mainly mere windbags so let us all know in the Comments how much each of you have donated.

Let us do our best to make attempts at censorship counterproductive.

Posted by jonjayray on Tuesday, September 13, 2005 at 10:05 PM in Free Speech
Comments (7) | Tell-a-Friend

The latest on Prof Fraser

Summary just in from Chris Brand

African students at Sydney University of Technology were said to be planning mass disruption of Professor Fraser’s classes (The Australian, 29 vii). After a few days’ consideration of Macquarie University’s offer of (effectively) a dishonourable discharge, Professor Fraser – by then suspended from teaching duties by fat and faded frump Vice-Chancellor ‘Di’ Yerbury (Sydney Morning Herald, 29 vii)—, announced (29 vii) his decision to remain in post – thus forcing the University into an expensive and risky trial if they were indeed determined to be rid of him. In a surprise move, the University then went back on its sacking threat, saying it would stand by academic free speech (29 vii)  – thus leaving Professor Fraser in the same position as I was by the end of July, 1996, after three months battling with ‘antiracists’: at Edinburgh University: on full pay and without the burden of teaching but with a by-then partially co-operative Edinburgh LUniversity facing the wrath of irate lefties from all over the country (to which it finally gave in and decided on a top-secret trial and sacking of me in 1997). {Since Professor Fraser apparently has public supporters, the battle in Sydney can be expected to be much livelier, presumably resulting in a more rapid capitulation by Macquarie.}

Posted by jonjayray on Friday, July 29, 2005 at 01:29 PM in Free Speech
Comments (10) | Tell-a-Friend

Religious vilification laws in “conservative” Australia

Andrew Lutterell, who is one of our regular readers sent me an audio file (which is an extract from a radio talk show in Australia). Apparently, you can now be put behind bars in Australia for simply quoting from the Q’uran to demonstrate the intolerance of Islam. Astonishing. 

Jim_Ball__D[1]._Scot_2GB_Radio_28-6-05_1am.wma

All in “conservative” Australia, mind you. It goes without saying that such things did not happen in more “suffocating” times when “diversity” was not considered such a “strength”.

Posted by Phil Peterson on Sunday, July 3, 2005 at 09:04 AM in Free Speech
Comments (20) | Tell-a-Friend

Political correctness and open borders

Memories of slavery and Jim Crow make a sane discussion of illegal immigration likely to fall victim to cries of “racism”

“Recently, a remarkable op ed piece was written in my local paper about political correctness. The author was Andrew Oldenquist, professor emeritus in Philosophy for Ohio State University. Although I disagree with Dr. Oldenquist on many subjects, his comments on politically correctness were so wise and clear that they approached what rationalist philosopher Descartes called “intuitions of pure reason.”

Oldenquist began by pointing out that Germans are the most politically correct people in the world. Traumatic memories about the Nazis have impelled the Germans to fashion a set of politically correct rules against any word or deed that is reminiscent of the something the Nazis said or did. German law allows unrestricted abortion on demand of babies that are healthy and normal. However, the abortion of a radically deformed baby is forbidden because the Nazis practiced euthanasia and disposed of deformed children. Germans are embarrassed by patriotism and nationalism because Hitler abused patriotism and nationalism.

Continued...

Posted by jonjayray on Friday, July 1, 2005 at 03:12 AM in Free Speech
Comments (14) | Tell-a-Friend

A British newspaper nearly wakes up

Today’s Sunday Telegraph reports upon the corruption race politics have wrought to London’s Metropolitan Police Service.

Scotland Yard failed to investigate fully an allegation by a white woman of a rape involving an officer from an ethnic minority because of concerns that it would be accused of racism ...

At an industrial tribunal last week, the Commissioner Sir Ian Blair faced accusations of “politically correct meddling” in a disciplinary case involving white officers. He was said to have been keen to make examples of the officers, who faced charges of racist behaviour, even though an inquiry had already cleared them.

That charge is overshadowed by the latest unprecedented revelation, however, which demonstrates the extraordinary lengths to which the Metropolitan Police is prepared to go to accommodate officers from ethnic minorities.

The rape complaint, which the force has attempted to keep secret for four years, was considered so sensitive that Sir Ian, then Deputy Commissioner, oversaw the inquiry himself ...

The failure to question the officer because of the sensitivity over his race was confirmed by several sources. One said: “Scotland Yard was treading on eggshells with this and the feeling at the top level was that even putting the rape to this man would be too much.”

The woman, who cannot be identified, said: “Due process has not been served. This man, who is now a serving officer, was party to my rape.”

Scotland Yard said that the allegation had been “thoroughly investigated”. While awaiting their response, a man identifying himself as the officer’s solicitor called the offices of The Sunday Telegraph in a state of agitation. Attempts to contact him subsequently failed, but Scotland Yard admitted that after this newspaper’s inquiry, it contacted the officer. “We have a duty of care to him,” said a spokesman, who declined to comment on the duty of care to the alleged rape victim.

This repellant situation is a child of The Lawrence Enquiry.  Met Commissioner Sir Ian Blair denies he is only there to drive political correctness into his white officers.  But who believes that?  Not the un-named (alleged) victim in this case.  Not many of Sir Ian’s white officers, I suspect.

But there are at least some green shoots in the actions of the Sunday Telegraph, specifically its reversion to normal reporting standards.  This is a mighty step forward from its, of course, intentional silence on the racist murder of young Kriss Donald in Glasgow by a group of local Muslims.

There is still a gap to close here.  Justice is not “justice for the racially oppressed”, even if Sir Ian thinks so, and should never be reported as such.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sunday, June 19, 2005 at 02:53 AM in Free Speech
Comments (1) | Tell-a-Friend

A victory for Hoppe

I have long regarded the political correctness movement as a threat to all independent thought, and I am deeply concerned about the level of self-censorship in academia. To counteract this tendency, I have left no political taboo untouched in my teaching. I believed that America was still free enough for this to be possible, and I assumed that my relative prominence offered me some extra protection.

If I made one mistake, it was that I was too cooperative and waited too long to go on the offensive.

The closing words of a statement by Hans-Hermann Hoppe, professor of economics at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, following his victory over a UNLV “commissar”.

Hoppe had been persecuted through the disciplinary machinery of the university for an entire year by this individual.  His sin was having twice failed, while lecturing, to take account of the feelings of a homosexual student.

The academic world - or that part of it that cares more for academic freedom than political correctness - rode to Hoppe’s defence.  UNLV was presented with a public relations disaster and, with some reluctance it seems, was finally forced to back down.

Posted by Guessedworker on Thursday, April 14, 2005 at 06:31 PM in Free Speech
Comments (10) | Tell-a-Friend

U.S. politicians entrench themselves

The war on free speech continues in Congress. The crew that did its darndest to repeal the First Amendment back in 2002—Sens. John McCain and Russ Feingold and Reps. Chris Shays and Marty Meehan - is back, and now its looking to clean up the mess left by the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act.  That mess: insidious “527” groups, like MoveOn.org’s Media Fund and the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, of course.

Continued...

Posted by jonjayray on Tuesday, March 8, 2005 at 05:18 PM in Free Speech
Comments (2) | Tell-a-Friend

The British Inquisition

This afternoon, I attended a meeting called by organisations supporting the government’s proposed new law against incitement to religious hatred, which I believe threatens to suppress legitimate debate and criminalise people for simply telling the truth. Lined up in support of this bill were the Commission for Racial Equality, the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO), Justice, the British Humanist Association and the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB). Interestingly, they were very much on the defensive, as they felt that the attack on the bill, mounted by the comedian Rowan Atkinson and many others on the grounds that it would criminalise legitimate speech, had already done serious damage to the government’s case.

Continued...

Posted by jonjayray on Thursday, February 24, 2005 at 06:57 PM in Free Speech
Comments (3) | Tell-a-Friend

Free speech a low priority at college

“Write about free speech on American college campuses occasionally, and you quickly come to realize that a good many people honor the concept mostly in the breach. Every column defending free expression generates a number of emails with this basic message: Of course I support free speech, I just don’t think someone should be allowed to say that.

Continued...

Posted by jonjayray on Tuesday, February 22, 2005 at 04:00 PM in Free Speech
Comments (2) | Tell-a-Friend

Real tolerance being strangled

On the 18th of this month, 1,000 enraged Sikhs stormed the Birmingham Repertory Theatre, throwing eggs, smashing windows, injuring three police officers, attempting to climb onto the stage, and successfully halting the production after it had played for 20 minutes. “Behzti,” Punjabi for “dishonor,” had aroused the mob’s ire because the playwright, Gurpreet Kaur Bhatti, had placed its rape scene in a Sikh temple. Ms. Bhatti, herself a British-born Sikh, had resisted local pressure to move the incendiary action to a religiously neutral setting like a community center.

Continued...

Posted by jonjayray on Saturday, January 1, 2005 at 07:01 PM in Free Speech
Comments (4) | Tell-a-Friend