|
|||||
|
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] Authors
Arts, Tech & CultureCivil LibertiesCommentary
EconomicsSamizdatistas |
It’s a joke, you fucking cuntsPerry de Havilland (Wiltshire) · Arts & Entertainment · Civil liberty, Law & Regulation · UK affairs March 22nd, 2018 |
 35 comments to It’s a joke, you fucking cunts |
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. CategoriesArchivesFeed This PageLink Icons   |
|||
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |
|||||
“It is offensive – if you’re a fucking Nazi!”
We need to mock the fuck out of this 😆 😉 😀
And this is also very telling. Pie refers to this incident in his excellent rant in fact.
Jonathan Pie is great, but the problem all along has been liberals like him not understanding what the hard left is about. (It was the same after the February revolution in Russia, the liberals were so obsessed with the counter-revolution that they didn’t notice what the Bolsheviks were doing in plain sight.) “Where are the artists, the writers, the comedians?” But for leftists, free speech was always just a vehicle to power. Once you arrive at your destination, the vehicle is no longer needed. Liberals still haven’t twigged that the hard left is not on their side, and certainly no longer on the side of free speech now that they are gaining power.
That it was clearly just a joke (unfunny AFAIAC) is, I assume, the politically-correct pursuers’ motive and point. When you call others nazis to cloak the fact that precisely those for whom you wrote and operate the ‘hate speech’ laws are the ones most likely to channel Adolf in earnest then of course you can maintain your threadbare fiction of even-handedness only by pursuing such jokers.
Reminds me of a reputed saying from one of the early, big, Hollywood studios- “Our comedies are not to be laughed at.” You know you’re in trouble if even the Germans can make fun of the Nazis (‘Iron Sky’, and “Look who’s back!”,) and British people can’t!
It’s the Charlie Hebdo excuse.
‘Well, obviously we don’t approve of people being machine-gunned to death for a cartoon. But they aren’t on our side, and we’re really scared of appearing racist and/or being machine-gunned ourselves, so really we can’t say anything in support.’
I stole the video for my own post on the state of British Justice
https://ombreolivier.liberty.me/the-unbearable-gayness-of-allah-and-other-british-tales/
On one level this video is very funny, and morale boosting. On another it is very depressing, as the matter is really not funny in any way. The left fight dirty, and have largely won. All people of good will seem to be able to do is comfort themselves by making light of it all.
While I appreciate the sentiment behind things like contributing to the legal defense of people who are being persecuted by commie fucks like the majority of the judiciary, and have even contributed to such causes here in Oz, I increasingly wish there was just some organization I could donate to who’s sole mission in life was using that money, in the most cost effective manner possible, to directly destroy the lives of these authoritarian pricks.
A bit grim, but there you have it.
I have now emailed my MP with copies to the chairs of the Conservative Party and the 1922 committee and Jacob Rees-Mogg.
I have to believe that enough people doing this will have an effect, but I agree with the implication in Francis T’s post: currently there is no British Justice.
Of course, this is a feature of the push to “Social Justice”, which is completely antithetical to real justice. The latter insists on everyone being equal in the sight of the law; the former identifies the worthy and singles them out for special treatment in the name of equal outcomes. As Terry Pratchett said, this is the root of the word “privilege”-private law which benefits some but not others.
Our nation (I can hear the elites wincing) spent at least six or seven hundred years establishing the principle of equality before the law and now we throw it away like a used crisp packet.
This will not end well.
No freedom of speech, no freedom of the press, no freedom of religion, no right to assemble to protest government excesses, no right to bear arms. Those are all the marks of a police state. But, the UK is worse than a police state. In at least two cities, the police aided and abetted Muslim groomers of young white girls. And people who complained were prosecuted for racism.
I thank God my grandparents had the good sense to leave. What was wrong with your grandparents, or you, yourself, for that matter?
All the Anglo-sphere countries except the US are populated with supine, servile serfs.
When will Pie be arrested?
I’m hearing that at least David Baddiel and Ricky Gervais are complaining about this.
Gervais:
https://twitter.com/LaloDagach/status/976172003467186187
I’m glad they left too, I’ve no time for people who run away.
They were burdened with a backbone & so didn’t run when the going got tough.
I’m fine thanks, and fighting to reclaim my country. I was heavily involved with the Brexit fight & I’ll be heavily involved with this one too. You on the other hand are not here, mate, so you’re as much use as a chocolate teapot. Fight your own fucking battles, god knows you’ve got enough of your own.
Well, that gets passed around.
“You on the other hand are not here, mate, so you’re as much use as a chocolate teapot. Fight your own fucking battles, god knows you’ve got enough of your own.”
I like your attitude but this is slightly absurd when you consider how often the UK has had to seek help from its Anglo allies, without whom there would be no UK today.
I left England many years ago and from the perspective of a frog outside the boiling pot, and looking in, it’s shocking how rapidly the country is becoming a proto-fascist culture with a strong and growing Islamist flavour.
Both parties are led by authoritarians and the demographic trend toward immigrants who bring with them statist belief systems are very sobering.
Looking from the outside (for the most part) at both countries, I think the above suggestion is fair, and could apply to pretty-much everywhere else on this planet.
The US helped the UK because it was in US interests, not because it was in UK interests. The US did the UK’s legs over Suez because it was in US interests. That’s what nations do. US arriving wasn’t what won WW1, it was just what made it inevitable. And in WW2, if the UK had come to terms with Germany due to losing Battle of the Atlantic, there’d still be an independent UK (Sealion wasn’t viable after we’d won Battle of Britain, and that didn’t require US help). So occupation (which is the only way the UK ends) was never a realistic prospect from late 1940 onwards. So it would’ve been a Nazi Europe, not a Nazi Britain. And that wasn’t in American interests either.
I stand and fight here, because the same battles need to get fought most places, so I choose here, because here is where I’m from. Help if you want. Or not.
Wow. Awesome rant.
For the benefit of an outsider, a few questions: As I understand it this decision was by a trial court, right? With no jury? Are there avenues of appeal? Has a sentence been imposed? The idea that context or intent don’t matter should be absolutely frightening, as well as being thoroughly antithetical to the common law tradition. Is he planning to appeal? Or wait until the sentence is known to make that decision?
Laird,
This case was in the Sheriff Court, an all-purpose Scottish court for what you call misdemeanours (summary cases, judge alone) with, AIUI, appeal to a Sherriff Appeal Court with a bench of 3 judges, then if allowed, appeal to the highest Scots criminal court, the High Court of Justiciary, with no scope for it going to the UK’s Supreme Court unless matters relating to ‘Human Rights’ law arise. He would only get a jury (of 15 in Scotland) if it were a ‘solemn procedure’ offence, like felonies or ‘indictable’ offences in England. Common law is not how Scots law works, it has its own traditions, a sort of hybrid ‘Romanesque’ system, but 300 years of Union have led to civil law converging with England in some areas, a lot of our 20th Century tort precedents arose from hapless Scottish women, drinking rotten snails in their ginger beer and having other mishaps.
Sentence is on 23rd April. I know not if he is planning to appeal, I hope that he does.
Bulldog Drumond (March 23, 2018 at 9:38 pm), “The US helped the UK because it was in US interests, not because it was in UK interests.”
Not a fair criticism. It was far more in the interests of any European country not to practice a cowardly neutrality while Hitler conquered most of them and dominated the rest (with clear intent to annexe later), but an astonishing number did less than nothing till each was itself attacked, or appeased the frightening Adolf while exploiting our much greater unwillingness to invade the uncooperative. (In the cold war, Sweden showed the same disgusting attitudes towards the Soviets versus the west.) In the years before it was itself attacked (which the US would not have been if it had looked supine and appeasing: the areas Japan actually wanted were all in our empire or Holland’s), the US took many actions which more selfish, short-sighted or cowardly leadership could have delayed yet longer or never done at all. As Churchill put it, “You can always rely on the Americans to do the right thing – after they have exhausted the alternatives.”
I’m with Alisa (March 23, 2018 at 8:44 pm) as regards the right tone of reply to an earlier commenter’s criticism.
Laird: “With no jury?”
He’s better off without a jury for the sort of charges he’s had levied. Glasgow is a shit hole of extreme leftists.
Not only does the Greater Glasgow area includes such places as East Dunbartonshire and East Renfrewshire, where the people know only too well what it is like to live next door to areas populated by excessive numbers of leftists, but also North Lanarkshire contains many who may vote natz (in the past, labour) for free stuff but are a little too crude themselves to echo the “you can’t say that” politics of the prissy left. In his place, I would have chosen a jury trial if I’d had the least ability to choose.
The Bearsden (in East Dunbartonshire) council’s leaflet for newcomers emphatically explains that Bearsden is not a suburb of Glasgow (whatever the local geography might make the casual observer think) – it is in East Dunbartonshire. Or, as I recall hearing one grown up explain to another when I was a small child, “Bearsden’s no Glasgow, ye ken.”
Rickey Gervais? The only thing I’ve seen from him is he and some other half-clueless guy telling him about the case making jokes about the dog. No outrage whatsoever about the conviction.
Of course context and/or intent is irrelevant. How else is one to burn witches? The point of witch burning is to burn witches, yeah? The courts are window dressing to give it a laughable air of ligitimacy.
HA HA HA HA…and you thought you were free!
There are two kinds of thinkers, fact thinkers and feelz thinkers. Liberals are feelz thinkers.
Fact thinkers use facts, reason, logic and, blindly, often conclude that this is enough. Examples, look at how Ben Shapiro declares that facts don’t care about feelings, ignoring that people do. Look at how Ayn Rand was so engrossed in her logical point about self-ishness to see how 99% of the human race would knee-jerk to a largely irrelevant and unnecessary technical point about how the word selfishness could be used as opposed to how it is commonly used.
The result is that both Shapiro and Rand are/were both HUGELY concerned with morality and ethics and individual welfare, yet both are commonly viewed as uncaring monsters, both (“Jews”) being at times compared to Nazis, ironically enough.
Feelz thinkers on the other hand care about optics, but not results. Hence the constant virtue signalling. Optic are about feelz. Results are boring. For liberals, intent is all that matters. For Leftists, “context and intent are irrelevant”.
THE STATIST/GLOBALIST LEFT ARE USING THE LIBERALS.
The weakness of liberal feelz thinkers is that reason and logic are not their strong suit. They’re being manipulated by those with an unquenchable thirst for unbridled world power, and clueless enough to fall for it.
What if the man was a Nazi? The Common Law does not see any crime in the communication of a general opinion (for example the opinion that everyone whose family name is “Marks” should be gassed), it is not a specific plan to kill a specific person at a specific time.
As for Freedom of Speech – this is BRITAIN “you fucking cunts”, there is no Freedom of Speech here. Lauren Southern was banned from Britain for saying “Allah is Gay” – again as a JOKE, in response to Vice News claiming that Jesus was “Gay”. And Brittany Pettibone was banned from Britain for saying nothing-at-all – she was banned for what she MIGHT say.
Appealing to Freedom of Speech in Britain is about as likely to succeed as appealing about the Right to Keep and Bear Arms to the Economist magazine. There is no First Amendment in Britain – no more than there is a Second Amendment here.
“But it was just a joke” – so what? The “liberal” elite did not like the joke – so they will the punish the comic. This is Britain – this is what happens here.
Remember publically saying Allah is Gay is a crime, but saying that Jesus is Gay is not. And you can also be hit by the state for saying NOTHING AT ALL, “we think you might say something bad” is enough – as Brittany Pettibone found. “Thought Criminal!” but I have not said anything – “we know you have not SAID anything – that is why we said THOUGHT criminal, you have criminal THOUGHTS”.
It is actually quite relaxing to live in Britain – every other thing I say is illegal (or my thoughts are criminal), the contents of the house (those evil books opposing Muhammed and so on) are illegal, most of the things I do are illegal. So I do not need to worry about breaking the law – as breaking it is a normal part of life. If Britain was a more moderate place I would be worried by how to stay within the law – but as staying within the law is just about impossible (this being Britain) I can relax.
“But you will die in prison” – well better than dying in the gutter, after all I do not have a pension.
“Remember publically saying Allah is Gay is a crime, but saying that Jesus is Gay is not.”
Feelz thinkers (liberals, who are tools of the Leftists) are stupid enough to think Islam is “brown people” and therefore a race.
This is wrong on so many levels.
1. There are billions of non-white christians.
2. Saying something against a religious ideology isn’t “racist” in any event.
3. Most Muslims in the world are not even middle eastern nor even from south west asia.
Statists/Globalists don’t care about justice nor fairness. Their objective is National/Global control.
Yes Thailover – the establishment believe that Islam is a “race” so opposing it is “racism”. They also believe that “offending” people is a crime – but only if the people offended are from certain groups.
It is actually difficult to think-down to the level of the “elite”.
Yes indeed – Pie is certainly NOT defending free speech – he is merely defending the freedom to make PC jokes.
So what?
It’s not surprising that Lefty comedians have failed to condemn the conviction – it was Lefty comedians like Ben Elton, Jo Brand and Rik Mayall who put Blair in office whereupon he promptly gutted the House of Lords to neutralise opposition to his legislative jamboree and then passed abortions like the 2003 Communications Act.
We are all condemned by this verdict, and others like it, but more than the average share of that blame rests on the legal profession and their Lefty enablers.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/mar/25/being-offensive-should-not-be-illegal-in-society-that-defends-free-speech
Actually I think that “fomenting hatred” should be legal. The test should be whether he is directly inciting criminality, as in urging his follower, whom he has, to do criminal things, as they have in the past when he so urges them. But the line is, as always, hard to draw, and at this Guardian piece is roughly on the right side on this.
Of course he is defending free speech, explicitly in fact.
Every month, as child, I would witness “spokesmen” for the Provisional IRA appearing on TV in my living room. After every one of their bloody and random massacres of men, women and children, some glib coward would stroll in front of the gathered camera crews of the international media and blithely announce that the blame for all the deaths lay squarely with “Westminster intransigence” and that more massacres would inevitably follow unless “London” listened to the just demands of the “Oirish People.”
During that terror and propaganda campaign the Provisional IRA enjoyed the full support of people like Jeremy Corbyn, Peter Ustinov, and large sections of the UK and US MSM, the European establishment, and various Libertarian groups at home and abroad.
Never once did I think that banning IRA spokesmen would somehow lessen the incidence of terrorist violence in this country – when Thatcher tried and failed to curtail terrorist propaganda through the 1986 Public Order Acts – I denounced them as an anathema.
The difference between culpable incitement and the general expression of opposition and hatred has a long established history in this country – whether the threat is credible, personal, local, instrumental, is the threat in itself necessary and sufficient to be directly causal, and even if the threat does constitute incitement is any resulting action either warranted or justifiable?
All these distinctions were recognised in English law long before Thatcher, Blair and John Major sent in their wrecking crews.
Paul Marks is correct – we must face the truth – we are not living in a free country and anyone who thinks otherwise is, at best, a fool.
That’s a great quote.
No he isn’t. He is only defending free speech in the context of making jokes. Nowhere does Pie say Dankula has the right to make odious remarks whether or not Dankula actually means them.
At the minimum, a defense of free speech would be of the “It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg” variety.
BTW, This is the morning of March 25th and the video was put on youtube the 22nd. I’m surprized the video is still on youtube considering youtube is being heavily censored (yes censored not moderated) by the Southern Poverty Law Center, a far-leftist off-shore org that has nothing to do with America’s south nor poverty, nor even the rule of law apparently.
What was Google/Youtube thinking?
‘Yeah, I’ll have youtube “moderated” by a far leftist radiacalized activist group. What could possibly go wrong?’