We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
Samizdata comment of the day For decades, every school and university in the West has been teaching that the feelings of the protected classes trump rights of free expression.
The media are ruled by it, politics is in thrall to it, and each and every citizen of all these great, free, democratic societies knows in the back of his or her mind that if you dare say the wrong thing, you will be keel-hauled.
We’ve all watched it happen. We’ve complained and objected and had various hissy fits. The PC crowd just shrugged and found some more terms that were offensive, some more victims that needed to be protected, some more ideas that demonstrated a depraved, sexist, racist, whatever-ist mind and needed to be cast out.
I don’t care who this guy is, or how ironic it all is. What difference does it make. The suppression many predicted, and so many others played down, is here.
Did you think they were kidding?
– Reader and commenter veryretired, on this thread.
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
I agree absolutely. A point I would make is the importance of private property rights (ok, I am preaching to the converted, but never mind). If a privately owned space like this blog wants to bar access to abusive people, then it has every right to do so. By the same token, if a newspaper run by the Communist Party wants to prevent comments from pro-capitalists, the same applies.
Private property rights make it possible for people to enforce their own standards in their own space. It avoids the need for the state to make a judgement on offensive speech and so forth.
Funnily enough, certain folk who have been booted off this blog in recent years completely fail to get this point. They imagine that their “right” to say what they want holds regardless of whether they are talking in the street or whether they are ranting in someone’s private home.
Anthony Browne at Civitas recently published this excellent summary on the tyranny of the PC-elite.
As a student in the early 90s my free market, libertarian views were deemed terribly establishment and untrendy. It is interesting to note that those same views are now very much anti-establishment and radical.
It is still unfashionable to espouse “right wing” views. But i sense the tide is turning.
I guess you don’t have the right to freedom of speech. That is the problem with not having a written constitution to guarantee rights. If your freedom is dependent upon the state’s good will, you can lose it over night, and there is nothing you can do about it. Stupid people say stupid things, ridicule them, don’t set the police on them. Oops, is calling people stupid against the law too? I hope the police don’t read your blog and knock on my door.
Veryretired really nailed it, didn’t he. A fitting Samizdata “comment of the day” indeed.
Of course, a written constitution is no guarantee. Think McCain-Feingold, or this(Link). Still, better to have badly-enforced constraints on tyranny than none at all…
Commenters like veryretired and Verity (in the same thread) are one of the reasons I read this blog in the first place.
I think that both need to be shanghaied into becoming regular contributors here.
On the instant subject, I suggest that the Board of Deputies club together and brief an eminent QC with expertise in free-speech matters to appear for Sir Iqbal – for free. Said eminent QC to be of the Jewish faith. It’s a pity that amicus curia does not have the same currency in the UK system that it does in the US. Such a brief might have a significant resonance with the unthinking masses when it comes to this area – a sort of ‘aha’ moment.
llater,
llamas
Johnathan — your point about property rights is spot on but it involves a concession to the church of PC that mabe should not be made. It is a concession because you are saying ‘you can have public space as long as I can have my private space ‘( weblog where we exercise our right to say what we want to people we want ).
Should the concession be made though ? Why concede that group rights *trump* freedom of speech ? Has this ever been etablished by argument that any reasonable person has to accept because it is so persuasive ? I dont know of any such argument so why make these concesions to the PC culture ?
Curly one. To me, there are 2 scenarios:
1. Saying ‘let’s kill all the Kalathumpians’. I don’t think freedom of speech extends to this.
2. Saying ‘we reserve the right to exclude the Kalathumpians (being people we don’t agree with) from our private club – but we do not wish them harm outside our private club’. I do think freedom of speech extends to this, except of course where membership of that private club is a pre-requisite for obtaining necessities of life such as food.
I think when Christians and Jews speak about their scriptural approach to homosexuality, they fall into the 2nd category (at least in these times). Homosexuals are not harmed as such by being excluded or having their activities described as sinful. Agree to disagree and move on. Homosexual people are free, if they wish, to start their own religious groups which take a different point of view – the barriers to entry for that kind of activity are negligible.
However, when Muslims say it, I still think they are still in the first category given the harm still done to homosexuals within the Muslim world. They and their society have not sufficiently migrated to the second category.
I accept Sacranie didn’t say ‘let’s kill all homosexuals’. However, given killing of homosexuals does still continue in the Muslim world on the grounds of sexuality, Sacranie’s comments were incredibly irresponsible (i.e. inflaming anti-homosexual sentiments of his audience etc). He shouldn’t have said it, and ‘freedom of speech’ is no defence.
And his excuse that ‘Christians and Jews say the same thing’ is misleading to say the least – Christians and Jews have long given up killing homosexuals for their activities. Muslims haven’t.
ic,
I see and hear your comments all the time, both in Oz and Albion. And everyone who makes them make the same mistake.
Here in Oz the whine is not that there is not a written constitution, there is, but that there is no bill of rights included.
Everyone who makes this comment expects that their favourite issue will be protected, in the manner they require, in a Bill of Rights. Well, it ain’t so. No Bill of Rights could possibly contain all the protections for such a hodge-podge of conflicting desires that the advocates of such a document express.
Look at the European Bill of Rights, as laid out in the European Constitution. It is such a mishmash of PC touchy feely tripe, surrounded with so many caveats, that it protects nothing worth protecting.
The European Convention on Human Rights, which is now part of British law, guarantees the right of an islamofascist paterfamilias to force family daughters to wear black bin bags to school, regardless of the school uniform rules, but does nothing to protect freedom of conscience or habeas corpus from the depredations of this putrid government. And the government doesn’t even need a derogation introduce its vile legislation.
I piss on modern written constitutions.
Adrian–Sacranie came nowhere near inciting his fellow muslims to kill homosexuals . His claim is that the practice is ‘harmful’ and ‘sinful’ from muslim point of view.( we of course disagree with this but that is irrelevant ). So your defence of censorship wont work because it involves conflating two different claims:
1) the practice is harmful/unacceptable.
2) the practice is harmful and I think it should be punished by death.
Sacranie says that (1) is true and not (2).
No, he is being criticised for ‘homophobia’ ( not hate speech ) and that is wrong and his right to express views disrespectful of homosexuality *is* protected by his right to free speech.
Paying for one’s pleasures – this slogan has become a cynical mantra in the Woods family because of its origin.
We were touring the interior of British Columbia with a family of former Montrealers who’d been transferred to Kitimat.
We had just trekked to the top of Mount Osyoos a sage covered mountain in southern BC at the upper end of the great western desert region. On the way down the two sandal clad girls aged six and seven stepped on cacti and had spines stuck in their feet. Not a nice thing believe me.
As the spines were removed from the sobbing girls’ feet, the logic intoxicated Greek daddy of one asked if the girls had enjoyed the view at the top. They quaveringly replied that they had at which point Dad pointed out somewhat heartlessly – well you see you have to pay for your pleasures.
Needless to say the rest of us jumped on him but the expression became an insider joke with us thereafter.
The point of this is that Sir Iqbal and his ilk now have to pay for their pleasures of stifling all our quite justifiable critical comments of Islam.
Would it be too hard on these tender souls to remind them to beware of what they wish for since as in this case it could turn out to work against them.
zednek, I don’t think my post concedes “group rights” (an oxymoron, since only individuals can have rights), at all. I was simply saying that the understanding of the difference between private and public space can be useful in unlocking some of the sort of controversies that we write about. That was all.
Zdenek, I agree that he did not say to kill or harm anyone and acknowledged this in my original piece.
However, there are plenty of Muslims, including those in Sacranie’s audience who do think it is OK to kill or otherwise harm people whom they consider infidels, unclean, sinful etc. It wouldn’t take much for some of these nutters to hear what Sacranie says, and go and do something harmful to homosexuals.
Killing of homosexuals for religious motive is commonplace in the Muslim world, and I have no doubt much of it is incited by religious leaders, whose condemnation of homosexuals might range from the mild (saying it is unclean/unacceptable etc, a la Sacranie) down to more threatening instructions to kill.
My original point was that a Christian or Jewish leader can come out and say homosexuality is sinful, unclean etc, and the chances of one of their followers (even fundamentalists) killing or harming a homosexual person for religious motives is as close to zero as makes no difference.
Of course, in the Western world there are gay bashers, but I don’t think too many are motivated by Christian religious belief
If a Muslim leader makes the same comment, the chances of this happening increase substantially because of the current acceptability of killing infidels within Muslim society (or at least a substantial pocket of it).
Adrian- the weakness of your argument is your claim ( main premis ) that chances of killing homosexuals in Muslim society increase when a religious leader says that such practice is harmful.
Normally the burden of proof would be with those who want to challange your claim but not in *this case* because of what is involved viz. right to express unpopular opinions in public space. An this is why the empirical claim you are making needs justification.
Note the same argument is made by feminists against explicit sexual immages : trying to show that it leads to rape. Wlilliams was right to argue like I am and point out that because an important right is involved the evidence showing that the causal link exits between explicit sexual immages ( consumption/publication of it ) and rape should be well established.( which is not ).
Well I must say that your claim about the link between Sacranie’s public pronouncements and violence is similarly weak so the argument itself is weak.
But second ( I am sticking my neck out a bit here )you display in your comments a mindset that drives political correctness: rights including core ones are mere istruments for promoting ideology ; shame on you.
I think everyone would agree that certain speech in certain situations can amount to violence. It should be noted that such speech can be equally harmful whether voiced on public or private property. For instance, if Zarqawi uses a private blog to send a code word to a group of suicide bombers and that word incites them to violence, the public or private nature of the forum is irrelevant. So mere banishment of truly harmful hate-mongers is not always enough. And his “right” to voice his “opinion” is not protected in such a situation. One hopes he would still be banned from further commenting, though!
A very good post.
I have just read some of the comments.
The-powers-that-be are not interested in debating what is an incitement to violence (whether it is “go kill Mr Smith” or “go kill everyone with brown eyes”) they wish to determine opinion.
The people who dominate the institutions of this country (and much of the world) are not people of good will.
They have basic core beliefs – and one of those core beliefs is hatred of freedom.
It would seem to me that seeking a clarification from Freedom House on political freedom and the effects of intrusive speech laws on their ratings would be a great start on the larger problem. Either you are all whining about nothing or Freedom House needs to revise the UK’s ratings down. A downgrade in the UK’s ratings would be a realistic initial goal for those unhappy with the present situation.
Robert Speirs- correct but this does not apply in this debate because the dude did not incite anyone to any violence ; all he said was that homosexuality is harmful , that it is not ok. The point is that he is entitled to hold and *express* an opinion like * that *. We would not be having this discussion if the guy said ‘lets kill all the homos’.
Your speech has to clearly cause some discernible measurable harm and plenty of it before you start intefering with people’s right to express unpopular opinion ; if you dont take this line the rights talk becomes vacuous and this needs to be resisted, surely.
Paul Marks makes a killer point.
If sir Iqbal says sodomy is harmful, he’s absolutely right. Gays are disease-ridden. Medical fact. (Tho’ I’m entitled to say it even if it’s not true.)
If he did say kill all the gays, so what? How is that worse than Marxists saying kill all the capitalists?
Gays are disease-ridden. Medical fact. (Tho’ I’m entitled to say it even if it’s not true.)
Um, compared to whom? and if it’s not true why say it?
The thing about all this is that I believe that Iqbal can say what he likes. When he says it the rest of us should come back and point out just how ridiculous his views are.
Unfortunately we are not invited to ,on the MSM, unlike here.
Alas Law generally muzzles rather than frees.
Sir Iqqy says homosexuality is also condemned by Christians and Jews, but that is not the case. Christians and Jews do not blame people for being born one way or another. How ridiculous. (I am speaking of the established churches, not freelance fundamentalists who have all kinds of bees in their bonnets. But even they, the craziest of the crazies, do not advocate burying homosexuals up to their necks in sand and inviting the populace to stone them to death. Or hang them for their “sin”.) He knows when he discusses homosexuality, it is not in the same context as a Christian or Jewish leader.
Sleight of hand and hope no one catches it.
Sacranie is a wily, scheming fellow and knew exactly what he was doing. He just hadn’t realised his luck was running out.
But, if we are to protect free speech, he still has an absolute right to speak his mind, in my view. In fact, I would like to hear a lot more crazy thoughts from this fellow because it would serve to open the eyes of hundreds of thousands of people in Britain who have been persuaded by a 30 year propaganda campaign by their own government that Islam is just another belief system and is, over all, beneficial.
The word Islam means “submission”. Keep that in mind.
Verity,
Sacranie has been making his loopy statements to the press for over a decade already, and what happens? His credibility with this government and the BBC has gone up!!!!!
The man demonstrated his credentials as an opponent of a free society for all to see at the time of the Salman Rushdie fatwa, but amongst those who swoon at the thought of another chance of sucking up to yet another oppressed minority he just goes from strength to strength.
Regardless of how ridiculous Socranie’s views, even if he had said “kill all the homosexuals”, which he didn’t, he should still be able to express his view. It has been said by someone else here that free speech is all or nothing. Absolutely correct. I think Socranie is a bigoted and misguided idiot but he should be able to say what he likes, as I just have.
There should be only two limits to free speech: Firstly the place in which one chooses to voice ones opinions – if the owners of this blog decide that they do not want my views published here they can delete them. If, however, I choose to stand at speakers corner and shout that the only true path to enlightenment lies is through the daily consumption of smarties, (it makes as much sense as any other belief!) no one should be able to stop me. They can walk away and ignore me though.
Secondly, whether one alleges something about another person, written or verbal, that can be proved to be untrue. ie libel and slander. In which case the subject of the allegations should be able to seek compensation, from the alleger, in a court of law. I know that it is possible now but it is a legal system not a justice system, and the one with the deepest pockets tends to win not the one who is truthful.
The only other kind of censorship should where a person avoids expressing their opinion in order to spare the feelings of someone they care for. There is not nearly enough of this self-censorship these days.
Nick Timms – where to begin?
You will find no argument here that Sacranie should be able to voice his opinion, no matter how bizarre the citizens of his host country find it.
You will find no argument that the owners of private property, as in this blog, have the right to turf people off their property.
I do, though, think you might, in today’s climate, find a hand on the back of your collar if you stand at Speakers’ Corner and say something not popular with Tony Blair and the nomenklatura.
A pair of old age pensioners, who went to their local town hall (which is paid for by taxes on the populace, so they own it, not the bureaucrats) and asked whether they might place Christian literature on the same table that was advertising gay activities, were called on by the police. They were told that Christian literature might be offensive to gays – which is so untethered – as though they were mutually exclusive – but anyway, these two pensioners got a visit in their home from the British Thought Police.
The Thought Police told this elderly couple wanting to leave some Christian pamphlets on the same table of a gay promotion at their town hall that they “were walking on eggshells”.
Oh, gosh, do you think for citizens over the age of 65 this might be a little intimidating? Do you think this couple will ever dare complain about anything again? May, indeed, stay mostly indoors from now on? Just maybe skitter out to the shops, together, for support, at noon, lunchtime, when there are lots of people on the streets.
God, I hate the Thought Police and Tony Blair’s foul communist government!
Thanks for putting my comment on the front page. It was fun showing off to the kids.
Paul Marks makes a very important point—this whole speech restriction business is not just a difference of opinion.
There is a chasm between those who believe that any speech short of direct incitement is, and must be, free from restriction, and those who believe that only speech they approve of should be permitted.
The current assertion that some speech is so hateful as to constitute an assault is a fraudulent attempt to turn the long respected axiom that some actions are a form of speech on its head. This inversion is not an attempt to expand the right to freedom of expression, however, but rather a cynical program to restrict it.
There is a very good reason that speech and religious freedom were included in the very first amendment of the Bill of Rights of the US Constitution. They are some of the foundation blocks upon which all else is built.
Notice how this this type of state action, mirrored in numerous university speech codes across the Anglosphere, attacks both.
My pleasure. It was well deserved.
I know this could be viewed as trivial but… I laughed ass off at a tv show on Ch4 last night called “My name is Earl”. it is the antithesis of PC. A belly laugh riot to boot.
that should read “Laughed my ass off”. hmmph.
Verity – why do you hate Tony Blair’s communist govt?
You admire the Chinese communists because they provide you with cheap toys. Also, they spend a lot of time censoring the internet. Unlike Britain.
I admire the Chinese government? Are you out of your silly mind?
22 Muslim “leaders” have written a letter to the Times, supporting Sacranie. It does not sit on the fence. It makes three points;
i) Islam is a homophobic religion – “we affirm Sir Iqbal’s views faithfully reflect mainstream Islamic teachings”
ii) and so is Christianity – “we believe The Bible teaches that marriage should be between man and woman”
iii) A belief in freedom of speech – “all Britons should be allowed to freely express their views”
(Times)
Frankly, it doesn’t matter what they believe as they are a minority interest trailing a primitive, alien subculture behind them.
They write: “We are deeply concerned about the breakdown of basic family values”. Me too. We need to outlaw marriage between first cousins. Incest, as the rest of the human race noted thousands of years ago, causes problems. Pakistanis account for three percent of births in Britain and 30% of birth defects.
We also need to clean up polygamy. There are around 4,000 people in Britain living in polygamous households and they need to be arrested. And frankly, in my book, nothing breaks down family values like getting your two sons to murder your daughter because you found lipstick in her purse.
On the other hand, maybe the family that slays together stays together.
Verity, 19 Dec 05 – “I [wouldn’t] mock anything the Chinese do to make money.” Samizdata
Verity, 13 Sept 05. “What’s happening in China is wonderful. Cheap goods for everyone…” Samizdata
No mention of freedom there. Obviously not something you care about.
I admire the commercial instincts of the Chinese people world wide. I admire this particular aspect of the Chinese race. This includes the people in China, the people in Taiwan and Singapore and the entire Chinese diaspora.
What is now happening in China is the people are climbing out of desperate poverty and are moving ahead, through commerce and capitalism.
I have absolutely no opinion about the Chinese government because I know nothing about it and have no interest in it. I enjoy seeing capitalism prevail. You can’t beat it.
I don’t believe there is an editorial fiat on this blog demanding that if we write about China, we have to address the political situation. Don’t be so ridiculous. And how pathetic that you went trawling through back issues for “evidence” to prove your point – but didn’t.
I didn’t write about freedom because I wasn’t writing about freedom. If you want to write about freedom in China, write about it. Duh.
I rather doubt that the real Karl Rove has graced us with his presence and I do not think we are dealing with someone who just happens is to have the same name.
So it seems safe to assume that “Karl Rove” is a jokester – and we should not take a jokester too seriously (a bit hypocritical comming from me, with my thin skin and short fuse – but there we go).
There is a rather a large difference between praising Chinese toy manufacturers and praising the government (and, no, most factories in China are not owed by the government).
I know the “Nazi example” is consided a no-no on the internet, by I think one is valid.
My father (a Jew) went to a fur cutters event in Germany before World War II – and he greatly admired some of coats and the companies that produced them.
Does that mean he was a Nazi?
Actually the coat he most admired was from Soviet Russia – now that must have come from a state company (there were no nonstate companies in the Soviet Union in the 1930’s).
Does that mean he was a Communist?
Actually my father beat up various pro Nazi people in the East End of London (the famous “battle of Cable Street” for example).
And he beat up some Communists when they attacked a shop (it was the only way to protect the shop and the women inside).
As for China:
One can attack the Chinese Communists for many things. But that is not the same thing as attacking all the Chinese people.
Indeed (at the risk of attracting the scorn of “Karl Rove”) I will even say that the Chinese Communists are not as bad as Mao’s gang were.
Sure they murder thousands of people a year (and sell some of their organs and other such).
But Mao and the Communists of his gereration murdered tens of millions.
Sure the modern Communists do not allow full freedom – but Mao and his gang allowed none at all.
The real question is this “is it just cynical”.
Are the Chinese Communists (who still have the picture of the greatest mass murderer of human history, Mao, all over the place) just allowing some capitalism to make China economically stronger – a strength they will then use for evil ends.
I do not know.
I don’t know either, Paul Marks. As I said, I know nothing about the Chinese government. But they have brought China along. They’ve made Chinese goods dependable and respectable. They’ve got vast numbers of people employed. (I am sure there are also vast numbers still living in dire poverty.) So the Chinese are making progress.
Expecting them to have a ‘eureka’ moment and suddenly dismantle their repressive state is just silly.
I know nothing about the Chinese government. But they have brought China along. They’ve made Chinese goods dependable and respectable.
No they haven’t. The Chinese entrepreneurs and their astonishingly hard-working employees did that. The government just got out of the way a bit in the commercial areas of life.
State interventionists like to take the credit for what other people do despite them. (Yes, Gordon, I do mean you.) The Chinese state had already tried fostering industrial development in The Great Leap Forward. What a success that was!
I believe Lee Kuan Yew would take issue with you. It was not entrepreneurs who turned the economy of Chinese around. It was the multinationals – invited in by the Chinese government.
Verity – “I know nothing about the Chinese govt.”
You’re actually PROUD to be ignorant. Why not read a daily paper occasionnally? The Morning Star shares your admiration for China. The Guardian less so.
2 – You said before you weren’t going to respond to me. Remember? You claimed Woody and Mia weren’t close. I pointed out they had 3 children together. You weren’t adult enough to deal with that.
3 – Enjoy your Chinese toys.
Yes it was people engaged in voluntary cooperation (whether Chinese or people from overseas organised in multinations) that improved the economic well being of the Chinese.
However, the government allowed them to do it – they (before the policy started to change in 1978) did not use to.
I agree that to expect people to turn from evil in one great “eureka” moment is a bit silly.
Even Gorbachev (spelling) did not really have such a moment (he thought he was saving the Soviet Union).
However, it does happen sometimes. For example the N.K.V.D. agent who defected to the United States in the 1930’s and wrote “I Choose Freedom” (no I can not recall his name). He just looked into the mirror one day and said “I do not believe in Marxism” – all else followed from this.
Even Boris Yeltsin (ex head of the Moscow Communist party) really seems to have had such a moment.
He really did come to believe in freedom of speech (including speech that called him all the bad things under the sun) and in trial by jury, and an end to conscription and nationalized industries and so on.
Perhaps there is something to be said for Vodka. Although, that is a bit of a silly comment (considering how Yeltsin’s foes used his drink problem against him).
Yeltsin did not understand monetary policy and allowed a vast credit money bubble to develop (which burst and wreaked a lot of things). But then his sober American advisers did not understand these matters any more than he did.
The years of Yeltsin were (mad though it seems to say it) in some ways a golden age.
There were T.V. and radio stations of many points of view, there was the privatization of most of the economy (yes perhaps he should have tired to prevent so much of the economy comming under the ownership of Jews, given how much Russians tend to hate Jews, but his lack of bigotary is to his credit) and trial by jury was established (now undermined).
Had he held power a bit longer conscription would have gone to.
Yes he went to war with the Chechins (spelling) – he was too quick to believe what men like Putin told him.
But Boris Yeltsin really did turn from a lifetime of service to evil and try to be good – it was not all opportunism, it was a real change of heart.
Yeltsin had the wisdom (a different thing from intelligence) to see that Marxism was evil – and he had the courage to fight it. Whether facing down tanks and troops sent to kill him (I remember him climbing on a tank and daring them to shoot him – that was not just drink, that was guts) – or (later) sending in tanks and troops to fight the Communists.
I believe such things are possible. Although (I agree) to count on repentance is silly.
Of course I do not believe that vile Chekist Putin will repent, but I do not hold even this to be totally impossible.
Karl Rove – you seem to be having trouble prosecuting an argument. Try to focus on the point of contention, rather than attempting to move the goalposts when you’ve hit a logical dead end – people tend to notice when you do this. Best just to bow out quietly, lest you look even sillier.
You’re also coming across as being a bit creepy.
Mr Waterton – what is YOUR point? That freedom doesn’t matter?