Right on but nothing left among the Singaporean Chinese Yesterday Reuters and AP broke the story of two Singaporean Chinese bloggers jailed for posting racist remarks about minority Malays.
For Western readers such actions by government reflect the political dispensation between free-speech and the new invention of hate speech. For Western readers like us hate speech is a social engineering tool of a repressive character, by which an unwilling host population is extensively deprived of the natural right to defend itself and its homeland. The concern of our establishments is, first, to manufacture overarching human rights which abrogate the rights of the host and, second, to defend them on behalf of the alien aggressors. Singaporean considerations are profoundly different. The establishment is concerned to preserve the status quo, meaning the power of a Singaporean-Chinese cognitive elite which is small-c conservative and ethnically loyal in its posture on majority/minority rights. Into this one can read not only the decadent and disloyal nature of the Western elites but something of the workings of the Chinese mind. It is, of course, a mind entirely uninfected by advanced liberalism. Its penchant quite naturally - one might well say sociobiologically - tends to authoritarianism and the demand for public conformity. Wherever Chinese populations arise they favour their own with unashamed unity. The notion that they should not do so but, on the contrary, should favour aliens is itself utterly alien to them. That is also the case among Chinese in the West, where they argue doggedly against host interests - and therefore for their own - along with every other healthy-thinking minority. In their own societies the conjunction of power and conformity suffuses Chinese life. Thus, at a petty level stories such as this:-
… and, much more seriously:-
But to return to where we began, Singapore has perhaps the highest Internet penetration in the world. It also has some of the toughest media laws – and none of them on the statute books so as to advance culture war. Singapore is a land of hymn-sheet singing. So we get a hopelessly obsequious Straits Times op-ed like this:-
Yep, this guy really l-e-r-v-e-s his authorities and just hasn’t cottoned on to the idea that free speech is not always nice speech. What it IS, though, is a threat to the stability of the Singaporean-Chinese majority. So, as Reuters in that first link said:-
And AP:-
Minority rights don’t come into it.
Comments:Post a comment:
Next entry: Imagine
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA NationsCategoriesContributorsEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer. LinksEndorsement not implied. Immigration
Islamist Threat
Anti-white Media Networks Audio/Video
Crime
Economics
Education General
Historical Re-Evaluation Controlled Opposition
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Europeans in Africa
Of Note MR Central & News— CENTRAL— An Ancient Race In The Myths Of Time by James Bowery on Wednesday, 21 August 2024 15:26. (View) Slaying The Dragon by James Bowery on Monday, 05 August 2024 15:32. (View) The legacy of Southport by Guessedworker on Friday, 02 August 2024 07:34. (View) Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) — NEWS — Farage only goes down on one knee. by Guessedworker on Saturday, 29 June 2024 06:55. (View) Computer say no by Guessedworker on Thursday, 09 May 2024 15:17. (View) |
Posted by Mark Richardson on Sun, 09 Oct 2005 00:33 | #
The government has defended these controls as necessary to maintain ethnic harmony ...
This seems to be the underlying justification for new sedition laws which will be coming into effect in Australia later this year.
This is how the Herald Sun reported the impact of the new laws on the internet:
The Sedition Act will be revamped to focus on people who incite violence against groups within the community, rather than classes of people as was the case under the old act.
The penalty for sedition will be increased from three to seven years’ jail.
One example of sedition given to the Herald Sun was where someone sympathetic to a terrorist cause puts up a notice on the internet calling on young people from a particular race to start fighting with young people of different races until they leave Australia.
A defence against the new sedition charge could be where the comment was made merely to criticise government policy.
For example, an internet posting calling for tight immigration curbs on young people from certain countries might anger people from those countries, but would not qualify for a sedition charge if genuinely about immigration policy.
Mr Howard sought to reassure Australia’s Muslim community yesterday that any new laws would not be specifically aimed at them.”
Reading between the lines, it appears that the laws are there to prevent people posting things which might upset other ethnic groups, unless the post concerns public policy.
My concern is that we could see a repeat of the Professor Fraser episode, where ISPs are threatened with legal action and cave in, regardless of the supposed exemption allowing criticism of public policy.
A few of us might be shifting to American ISPs in the not too distant future.
It’s another example, is it not, of how multiculturalism is incompatible with traditions of political free speech.