Category Archives: Free Speech

It's hard not to wince when college campuses are described as isolated from "the real world." Students of all ages work one or more jobs, incur debt and financial worry, juggle academic demands with busy schedules of service and other activities, and often support (or raise) their families.

Following centuries when access to higher education was considerably restricted, universities now educate students of all backgrounds. Women are in the majority, and many schools have reached out to first-generation and other traditionally underrepresented students.

Today's residential university, rather than an isolated cocoon, is a microcosm of our society. This is perhaps most apparent with the current tensions between advocates for free speech and inclusivity. From John Henry Newman's timeless "Idea of the University" to present-day pundits, the university has been envisioned as a place where ideas are advocated, scrutinized, debated civilly within a collegial community open to divergent views and respectful toward all. Easier said than done. And never more urgently needed.

Private, values-based universities have a special opportunity to be laboratories dedicated to the twin ideals of free expression and inclusive community at a time when both are under attack. From New England to California, campus speakers have been shouted down. Graduation honorees have been disinvited after being assailed from the left or the right. Students have demanded the removal of what they deem to be offensive slogans displayed on posters or on social media. Many not only are disinterested in genuine dialogue but also refuse to consider free expression as an important right.

Yet even passionate defenders of free speech concede that the situation is hardly simple. Some speech is problematic, often denigrating, and even hostile, to some who acutely feel their minority status.

An inclusive campus requires not merely that diverse students are admitted for study but also that they can flourish and be both supported and challenged. Being required to reflect on a disturbing text or consider an ethical position at odds with one's beliefs is part of the critical inquiry at the heart of a university education. Today's students need to get comfortable with being made uncomfortable intellectually.

But being disrespected because of one's identity is another matter. Feeling threatened or afraid goes far beyond mere discomfort. Having your race, religion or sexual orientation disparaged is far different from having your opinions challenged. Faculty and administrators must help students understand this distinction. And equally important to what we say is how we say it. Listening open-mindedly and speaking respectfully, especially to those from different backgrounds or with whom we disagree, are preconditions for living harmoniously in a residential hall ... or in a democracy.

Recently, as our nation has become increasingly polarized with disturbingly frequent incidents of public bigotry Alvernia University's faculty, staff and students have been reflecting anew on the kind of community we seek to be.

Faculty affirm that students will develop skills of critical and ethical thinking by considering issues from multiple perspectives. Disagreements should be engaged directly at a university, yet civilly and charitably. And all should recognize that such dialogue must never become personal never degenerate into attacks on an individual or a group.

Locally, we have a model for this in Common Heart, an interfaith initiative sponsored by Alvernia and whose founders were recently recognized with the university's Franciscan Award. Elsayed Elmarzouky, Rabbi Brian Michelson and the Rev. Phil Rogers offer empathetic insight into the shared and distinct perspectives of their three faiths. The programs provide superb education and demonstrate how free speech and inclusivity ought simultaneously to be celebrated.

My own university is fortunate to have our modern day patron, Pope Francis, and the Franciscan ideal of "knowledge joined with love" as our touchstones. The pursuit and expression of "knowledge" must be undertaken with what we honor as our core values: contemplation, humility, a spirit of collegiality, and a commitment to peacemaking and service. In this way, our universities, despite challenges and flaws, will be at their best inspirational models for the (all-too) "real world."

Thomas F. Flynn is president of Alvernia University, Reading.

Originally posted here:
Thomas F. Flynn: Universities seek balance of free speech and inclusiveness - Allentown Morning Call

FrontPage Magazine

My Free Speech at Berkeley, Not FrontPage Magazine A liberal with integrity, Kirsten Powers, has even written a first-rate book titled, The Silencing: How the Left is Killing Free Speech. But the university regularly turns a blind eye to the antics of its leftist totalitarians, and does nothing about ...

Go here to see the original:
My Free Speech at Berkeley, Not - FrontPage Magazine

Wall Street Journal (subscription)

A 'Free Speech Area' in Los Angeles Wall Street Journal (subscription) Watching the daily violations of liberty and common sense on American college campuses sometimes makes one wonder why anyone wants to attend, even with a taxpayer subsidy. The Journal's William McGurn describes in our pages today the mob that ... Protesters disrupt talk by pro-police author, sparking free-speech debate at Claremont McKenna CollegeLos Angeles Times Greed, Speech Suppression And Political Correctness: Another Day In American Higher EducationForbes Students Hijack Pro-Police Speech at Southern California SchoolTownhall City Journal -The College Fix -cmc.edu all 41 news articles »

See original here:
A 'Free Speech Area' in Los Angeles - Wall Street Journal (subscription)

You have probably heard about the politically-correct craziness happening on college campuses, but you may not be as familiar with the policies that enable it. That's probably because the majority of public universities possess overly-restrictive and unconstitutional speech policies. These policies prevent open debate and criticism of legitimate issues, issues such as authoritarian campus speech policies.

Fortunately, Young Americans for Liberty launched a national movement against restrictive campus speech codes.

On Tuesday, Gov. John Hickenlooper, D-Colo., signed into law monumental free speech legislation. Colorado Senate Bill 62 prohibits the state's public universities from restricting their students' free speech rights to tiny areas of campus known as "free speech zones." The success of this reform is in part thanks to Young Americans for Liberty members pushing for speech code reform at the University of Colorado-Colorado Springs.

The university's biased administration of speech policies sparked a debate that has since garnered almost unanimous bipartisan support. And that shouldn't be difficult, considering these designated speech spheres often discourage open dialogue by virtue of their absurdly small scope.

To put it in perspective, campus speech zones have been found to make up less than 1 percent of the public campuses in which they reside.

At least that's the case at Pierce College in Los Angeles, a campus that has recently come under fire for their restrictive speech policies. As outlined by Greg Lukianoff, president and CEO of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, during his testimony to Congress last week, Pierce College's free speech zone is comparatively the size of an iPhone within the lines of an entire tennis court.

Essentially, free speech doesn't exist at Pierce College. That's why the Young Americans for Liberty leader on campus took action against their college with the help of FIRE.

Pierce College YAL Chapter President Kevin Shaw met all the requirements for a new student organization: signatures, a faculty adviser and more. However, the YAL chapter was still denied recognition as an official student organization. And when Shaw was petitioning outside of his campus' designated free speech zone, an administrator shut him down.

The worst part? Pierce College administrators didn't shut down an anti-President Trump rally that violated the same speech codes two weeks later.

Also from the Washington Examiner

"Nobody believes that," he said. "Even the people who try to protect her in the news media."

04/12/17 7:54 AM

College campuses are inundated with the type of authoritarian speech policies that are found at Pierce College in Los Angeles and the University of Colorado-Colorado Springs. That's why YAL launched the national Fight for Free Speech campaign: to not only abolish unconstitutional campus speech policies, but to educate on the importance of what it means to have the right to free speech.

There is a notion among the campus Left that they can suppress the speech of their adversaries instead of confronting real issues through an open debate. In contrast to the liberal free speech crusaders of the 1960s, progressives today call for greater speech restrictions on their own campuses. These speech suppressors are therefore responsible for the campus craziness taking place.

Let me break it down for you: a student first has to gain permission from a college bureaucratic to exercise their First Amendment right. They are then restricted to a confined, designated "free speech zone" on their public university campus, and are told to adhere to often vague speech guidelines within that zone. If a student breaks these Orwellian policies, they will face disciplinary action. These policies typically only apply to those who possess unfavorable ideologies.

Now tell me, what about that scenario encourages civic participation? What about that political climate encourages students with differing opinions to speak up? What about that bureaucratic process is aligned with the mission of a public university?

The answer is nothing. Unless something changes, that's exactly what a generation of Americans will take away from an overpriced college education: nothing.

Also from the Washington Examiner

The news outlet will pay Trump about $2.9 million in damages and costs.

04/12/17 7:21 AM

Stand up for free speech even when you disagree with the speech. That's what makes it free.

Cliff Maloney Jr. is president of Young Americans for Liberty. He served as national youth director for Rand Paul's 2016 Presidential Campaign Committee.

If you would like to write an op-ed for the Washington Examiner, please read our guidelines on submissions here.

Read more:
Free speech on college campuses continues to fall victim to politically correct craziness - Washington Examiner

Grassroots campaign will subscribe Wyoming lawmakers to a feminist education.

JACKSON HOLE, WY After attending the Womens March in Washington D.C. in January, Pinedale artist Isabel Rucker was determined not to let her momentum wane.

A longtime community organizer, Rucker turned her sights from the national to the state level. Ive been looking at state level legislation and how we have the lowest number of women in any state legislature, Rucker said. I feel like our lawmakers are lacking knowledge about womens issues.

According to the nonprofit Wyoming Women Rise, women in Wyoming make up only 11 percent of state senators and state representatives combined, the lowest representation in the nation. The male dominated legislature is tone deaf to womens issues, womens advocates say. When Rucker contacted her two district representatives, both who happen to be men, to ask what they were doing for women in the state, they each answered: I dont know.

I was shocked, Rucker said. If I had asked what they planned to do for ranching or for energy, they would have had a laundry list response.

So Rucker teamed up with other Wyoming women she met through the Womens March and started a nonpartisan, grassroots campaign to better educate Wyoming lawmakers about womens issues.

The campaign, Ms. magazine for Wyoming, will raise $3,000 to subscribe every member of the legislature to two years of Ms. magazine, the iconic feminist publication reporting exclusively on issues of importance to women.

The crowdfunding campaign is hosted on GoFundMe.com and accepts donations of any amount. As of press time, the campaign had raised $2,175. Rucker said that any additional money raised above the $3,000 goal would be reinvested in the campaign, or donated to another womens organization.

In addition to donating, Wyoming residents are encouraged to sign a letter of intent that will be mailed to each Wyoming legislator explaining the subscription.

The letter begins:

We write as a group of Wyoming women interested in starting a conversation about equality in the state. To begin, we are sending you a two-year subscription to Ms. magazine. The magazine will provide you with an important perspective on the issues faced by women in the nation and state today. We are concerned that Wyoming legislators have too often ignored women. We ask you to write and support better legislation to improve the lives of half our population, half of your constituents.

One issue the campaign organizers want addressed is Wyomings pernicious wage gap, the worst in the nation. Wyoming women make a mere $.64 to a mans dollar, $.16 below the national average, which is still a full $.20 below what men earn. How will Wyoming make itself attractive to women workers if it doesnt live up to its Equality State name, Rucker asked.

The governor is asking for suggestions for a 20-year roadmap for Wyoming and there is a lot of concern for the states economy, Rucker said. Women can help our economy. Of the population entering the workforce nationwide, women are earning the most college degrees and adding high value to their communities.

Rucker invited Wyoming Women Rise founder Samantha Case to be part of the Ms. for Wyoming campaign. Wyoming Women Rise is raising awareness about low female representation in public office in Wyoming and to train and encourage women to run for office. Case gladly offered her support based on the similarities she saw between her organization and the magazine campaign. I hope the campaign will begin a more in-depth discussion on womens issues in the state, Case said.

In addition to Rucker and Case, the Ms. magazine for Wyoming campaign includes several more organizers from across the state. Co-organizer Rachel Martinez, a higher education advocate based in Cheyenne, said the campaign is about more than just sending out magazine subscriptions. This is the beginning of conscious conversations we will have with our elected officials, she said.

Martinez wants lawmakers to listen to many sides of issues. The actual voices and experiences of Wyoming residents are critical right now, she said. Lets get women to the table when we are talking about reproductive rights, healthcare and education. We have to have a seat at the table to make a difference.

Native rights advocate and Wind River Reservation resident Cherokee Brown joined the campaign in order to elevate the importance of womens voices and perspectives.

Women are a silent majority, she said. Its time our voices were heard. We want better pay, better jobs, and better education. We want to be equal.

Brown was born and raised on the Wind River Reservation. She moved to Lawrence, Kansas, at the end of the 1990s, and returned in 2014. She said she was shocked to see how few advancements had been made for Native people compared to the relative parity she found in Lawrence. When I came home it seemed the same as when I left. The healthcare, the education we need more equality.

Brown says lawmakers must understand Native issues as not separate from Wyoming issues. The same principle holds true when it comes to womens issues, she says. We need our lawmakers to help us. Our problems are their problems, because we all live together. Something that affects us is going to affect them.

To learn more about the Ms. magazine for Wyoming campaign, check gofundme.com/msmagforwyo. PJH

comments

Go here to see the original:
FREE SPEECH: Ms. Appropriate - Planet Jackson Hole

FrontPage Magazine

Berkeley Hates Free Speech | Frontpage Mag FrontPage Magazine The University of California Berkeley has an unearned reputation as the home of the Free Speech movement, a reference to the 1964 campaign by that name, ... and more »

Read more:
Berkeley Hates Free Speech | Frontpage Mag - FrontPage Magazine

April 12, 2017, Spencer Irvine, Leave a comment

Per FIRE, Flagler College approved a students free speech ball days after the event was supposed to take place:

AUGUSTINE, Fla., April 4, 2017 Flagler College has retroactively granted permission to a student to exercise her expressive rights with a free speech ball event but only days after the event occurred, and only after initially prohibiting her from hosting it at all. Flaglers decision followed a letter last Friday from FIRE warning the school to uphold the students rights.

Last Thursday, Flagler administrators told student Kelli Huck that she would not be allowed to host the free speech event she had planned for that Friday because the event was not sponsored by a recognized student group despite the fact she had twice attempted to form a Young Americans for Liberty chapter on campus. The Student Government Association denied both of her applications for official student group recognition because members perceived the prospective organization as trending towards one certain political agenda. FIRE wrote to Flagler earlier in March, urging the administration to overturn the student governments viewpoint-discriminatory decisions, and is still awaiting a response.

We are glad that Flagler College ultimately vindicated Kellis expressive right to hold a free speech ball event, but the university should never have placed her in the position of having to risk disciplinary action in order to engage in free expression, said Ari Cohn, director of FIREs Individual Rights Defense Program. The idea that only members of student groups and not individuals have a voice on Flaglers campus is deeply troubling and runs counter to the ideals that Flagler claims to value.

View post:
Flagler College Retroactively Approved Free Speech Event after the Event was supposed to be held - Accuracy in Academia

Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff has just returned to Austria after an extended visit to the United States, where she was invited to speak by various anti-Islamization groups in different cities.

On April 21 Elisabeth spoke in Dallas, Texas at an event sponsored by the Dallas chapter of ACT! For America. She was introduced at the event by Lt. Col. (ret.) Allen West. Below is the prepared text for her speech.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Thank you for inviting me to speak to ACT! for America here in Dallas, Texas. These are perilous times we are living in. Advocates for freedom on both sides of the Atlantic need to stand together!

For the past nine months Austria and the rest of Western Europe have undergone a profound transformation, one that will inevitably change the face of Europe permanently. I refer, of course, to the migration crisis, which began in earnest last summer, and is continuing as I speak to you. As the weather warms up and spring gives way to summer, we may expect the crisis to intensify even further. More than a million immigrants arrived in Austria and Germany via the Balkan route last year, and at least as many are expected to come this year probably significantly more.

These migrants are generally referred to by our political leaders and the media as refugees, but this is hardly the case. Not only are most of them from countries where there is no war to flee from, but they are also overwhelmingly young Muslim men, of fighting age. In other words, the current crisis is actually an instance of Islamic hijra, or migration into infidel lands to advance the cause of Islam. The hijra goes hand in hand with jihad once enough Muslim migrants have settled in the target country, violent jihad can begin.

It should be quite clear by now that the jihad phase has already begun in Western Europe. The most recent instances were the massacres in Paris and Brussels, which were acts of jihadcarried out by Muslims. Some of the terrorists were in fact refugees who had pretended to be Syrian and came in with the migrant wave.

And all of them were fighting jihad in the way of Allah, as instructed by the Koran.

I could take up my entire time slot tonight talking about the European migration crisis, and never do more than scratch the surface. However, Id like to discuss one aspect of the crisis that is very important: the manipulation by the mainstream media of the news about the migrants.

A single example from a beach in Turkey will help give you an idea of what is going on. The image that sparked Western interest in the crisis was the widely-publicized photograph of the dead toddler on the beach in Turkey. That photo is an example of media manipulation. Not about the fact of the babys death, but what was done with his little body once he was dead. There is now ample evidence that the body was moved and arranged in place so that the most heart-wrenching photo could be taken. Furthermore, the father of the child was not a poor helpless refugee trying to escape to freedom, but an accomplice of the people smugglers who piloted the boat, who irresponsibly brought his family with him.

For journalists working for Der Spiegel or Le Figaro or The Guardian or CNN, the media narrative is more important than the truth. And the media narrative was (and is) that poor innocent refugees are drowning because they are left to die by evil Europeans.

Those facts about the incident never made it into public consciousness. Not like the image of the pitiful corpse at the edge of the waves thats the kind of story that the Western media love to dish out, especially when it promotes the media narrative. Its also the kind of story that Western audiences love to lap up its what Gates of Vienna, the website Im associated with, calls Dead Baby Porn.

Dead Baby Porn tugs the heartstrings of well-meaning Westerners. It reinforces all their presuppositions about current events. It gives them a vicarious frisson about the poor, suffering child. And, in their response, it makes them feel morally superior when they join the clamor to open their countrys borders to the unfortunate refugees.

The media feed the public a steady stream of photos and videos that feature pitiful migrant women and children. We see them looking through the razor wire towards freedom, weeping, cooking their food over a campfire, and being pushed back by border guards. Yet these images are so misleading that they constitute disinformation.

The ugly fact is that the overwhelming majority of the refugees are healthy young men who either have no wives and children, or left them behind to seize the opportunity for hijra into Europe. They come from Afghanistan, Morocco, Eritrea, and Pakistan, but they acquire forged or stolen Syrian passports so that they become Syrian, and thus qualify for VIP status in the flood of refugees.

We are being deliberately manipulated. The Western public is being manipulated into supporting the migration of fighting-age Muslim men into Europe. They are being manipulated into joining the crowd of starry-eyed people holding up Welcome Refugees signs in European train stations. And they are being manipulated into paying for all of it through their donations to various NGOs whose mission is to aid the refugees.

Yet their donations do not cover the entire cost. Its a very expensive proposition to send refugees from Anatolia to the Greek islands, and then through Macedonia, Serbia, Croatia, Slovenia, and Austria to Germany. Its not just the payment to the people-smugglers who take them across a few miles of the Aegean and dump them just off the beach on Lesbos, although that is expensive enough. From there they are carried by ferry to the mainland, housed, clothed, and fed. When they continue their journey, they ride on buses and trains almost the entire distance they walk only a few hundred yards to cross each border, getting out of a bus in one country and boarding another one in the next.

This is yet another way in which you, the Western public, are being manipulated by the media. All those photos and videos of endless columns of refugees walking along dusty roads carrying their children and pathetic belongings those are not representative of the migrants journey. A typical shot would show hundreds of young men sitting on buses with air conditioning and upholstered seats. But you dont see many of those, do you?

Someone is paying the costs of all this. Public donations cover only a small portion of the billions of dollars paid out to transport migrants. The governments of the countries involved pay some of the cost. And the European Union pays some of it. And there are multiple indications that George Soros and his Open Society Foundations are bankrolling a lot of the process, including the printing of maps and helpful instructions for the refugees in multiple languages.

Make what you will of all of this. No matter what their motives are, the internationalists who push for global governance and a borderless world are expending vast amounts of money to fool the European public and move millions of Muslim immigrants into Western Europe. Europe will become more diverse, whether it likes it or not.

And if, as a consequence, terror attacks have to kill hundreds or thousands of people, and women have to be gang-raped, why, those are just unfortunate side-effects.

You cant make an omelet without breaking eggs, you know. Especially white European eggs.

***************

The migrant crisis is just the beginning of what might be called the kinetic phase of the deconstruction of European nation-states. Last summers events were not a new crisis. They were simply a continuation of an ongoing long-term process.

The constant flow of migrants across the Mediterranean into Europe has been going on for at least a decade. It picked up speed after the Arab Spring began in 2011, and especially after Moammar Qaddafi was murdered. Then the flow of migrants accelerated greatly last summer because President Erdogan of Turkey stopped interfering with the boats of the people-smugglers.

And now the European Union has paid an enormous amount of protection money to Mr. Erdogan in return for his promise to do what he used to do for free stop the traffickers boats from crossing the Aegean to Greece.

There is no doubt whatsoever that the flow of migrants into Europe is an intentional process on the part of EU leaders. Many of them especially German Chancellor Angela Merkel are on record saying how important it is to invite all this diversity into Europe. The recent tsunami has obviously taken them by surprise, but it is exactly what they wanted just not this fast.

They didnt want the immigrants entering this quickly because the indigenous people of Europe might become alarmed by the influx and take action to throw their leaders out of office. This would not do. Those leaders want native Europeans to remain asleep so that the process of population replacement can be completed before they realize it.

No, it wasnt supposed to happen this way. But now the European people are waking up, and change is in the air. It may be too little, too late but awareness is finally dawning.

Population replacement is only one of the strategies employed by those who want to deconstruct the nation-states of Europe. In order to complete the process without a hitch, the native populace must be kept under control. Existing cultural institutions such as the Church and patriotic organizations must be discredited and weakened so that people are unable to form networks and organize against what is being done to them. Ideally, they would beunaware that such organizing is even possible. They must remain atomized, divided from one another, and under the full control of the state the EU superstate, that is.

As the situation has worsened for the last decade or so, the European Union and its member states have cracked down on free speech. Bringing in so many migrants has accelerated the Islamization of Europe, which tends to be unpopular. Increased crime, more rape and harassment of women, the insistence that schools must serve halal foods and male students receiving permission to refrain from shaking their female teachers hand these are all things that citizens dislike. But from the point of view of EU leaders, there is no going back the migration must proceed; its a necessary part of the plan. Therefore, people must not be allowed to discuss these things nor urge their leaders to make changes. Instead, the criticism of Islam and Islamization must be forbidden. The Organization of Islamic Cooperation and the United Nations call it defamation of religion, and it has now been criminalized all across Europe. The EU is for all practical purposes enforcing sharia law on its indigenous residents.

Ten years ago, when I first began this work, the number of political prosecutions for hate speech in Europe was very small the cases could be counted on the fingers of one hand. But that number has been increasing steadily ever since, and is now rising exponentially. There are now hundreds, perhaps thousands of cases every year in which people are prosecuted for racism, incitement, and discrimination simply for criticizing Islam or mass immigration. Unfortunately, many of those prosecuted are being convicted and fined. And, horribly enough, some are being sent to prison.

There are many, many cases of people being prosecuted for speaking the truth about Islam. Far too many for me to tell you about them all. Ill discuss my own case in a few minutes, but first Id like to say a few words about two friends of mine.

The first case is that of Geert Wilders, the leader of the Party for Freedom the PVV the most popular political party in the Netherlands. If an election were held today, the PVV would win at least twice as many seats in parliament as any other party. After the current government falls, Geert may very well become the next prime minister.

Yet the government is prosecuting him for what he said about Moroccan immigrants. His first court appearance was last month, but the trial was postponed until next fall.

He is being charged with discrimination for asking his supporters at a rally whether they wanted more or fewer Moroccans in the Netherlands. The charges against him were brought after thousands of complaints had been filed with the police on pre-printed forms that police themselves had handed out in Muslim neighborhoods, and that imams had distributed to their illiterate congregants, many of whom had no idea what they were signing.

In other words, Geert Wilders was set up. His outspoken opinions about Islam, immigration, and the EU are considered unacceptable by the Powers That Be, and he must be stopped at any cost and by any means. His trial is a travesty, a farrago of justice. To call it a kangaroo court would be an insult to the worlds marsupials. A more fitting term would be show trial, just like those ordered by Stalin in the 1930s against his political enemies.

This is not the first political trial that Geert Wilders has had to endure, nor is it the second. This is the third time that the Dutch state has prosecuted him for hate speech. The first ended in a mistrial due to prosecutorial misconduct. In the second he was acquitted. But the establishment will not be satisfied until it has convicted him and ended his political career, so it is putting him on trial again.

Another friend who is being persecuted by the state is Tommy Robinson, who was one of the founders of the English Defence League and was its leader for five years. Tommy has been brought to court by the British government numerous times. All of those prosecutions the hate speech charges and all the others were trumped-up affairs carried out for political purposes.

Tommys most recent conviction was for mortgage fraud, a minor crime for which no one else has done jail time. In fact, members of parliament have done exactly the same thing, but were never even charged. Tommy, on the other hand, was sentenced to eighteen months in prison.

While Tommy was inside, he was locked up with hardened Muslim criminals who wanted to kill him. He was repeatedly attacked and beaten up, and ended up in the prison hospital more than once.

On one occasion he was locked in a cell with several Muslim prisoners. Tommy had learned beforehand that one of them was planning to throw a mixture of boiling water and sugar in his face. This nasty brew is called napalm by the criminals who use it, and it can cause horrible burns, much worse than those caused by simple boiling water. Tommy acted pre-emptively and beat up the man who intended to throw it on him.

It is this incident for which he was recently charged. Thanks to the efforts of a group of women who through crowd-funding raised more than enough money, Tommy was for the first time able to retain a top-notch lawyer. He was acquitted and is now a free man.

The real issue behind all these arrests is that Tommy speaks the truth about the danger to the British people posed by Islam. But he is no longer being prosecuted for hate speech offenses the state does not want the substance of what he says to aired in an open courtroom and discussed in the national media. Therefore other types of infractions must be found and other charges brought. The current case against him is simply the latest example of the repressive tactics being employed by the totalitarian British state.

So heres the plan: Lock up the most charismatic leader the British Counterjihad has. Put him in with his most dangerous enemies Muslim criminals who have promised to kill him. Make sure that the guards are absent or looking the other way when the trouble starts. Then, as far as the sharia-compliant British state is concerned, the problem has been solved.

The UK, like all the other enlightened governments of Western Europe, has abolished the death penalty. But theres more than one way to kill a political nuisance you dont have to march him up the steps to the gibbet, put the noose around his neck, and open the trapdoor under him.

What is happening to Tommy Robinson is capital punishment by alternative means.

***************

And now for my own case.

In early 2008 I began a series of seminars in Vienna, under the auspices of the FP the Austrian Freedom Party explaining to members and other interested parties what Islam, the Quran and the hadith really teach, along with basic tenets of Islamic law. In my presentations I discussed the consequences for democracy, freedom and human rights today.

For the next year and a half the interest in my seminars grew, and attendance increased. The success of my lectures drew the attention of Austrian leftists, who are determined to discredit and destroy the work of those who criticize the tenets of Islamic doctrine. To them we are racists, fascists, and Islamophobes. Unbeknownst to me, the left-wing magazine NEWS sent a reporter to one of my seminars to make a surreptitious recording of it.

As a result, in late November, 2009, a criminal complaint was filed against me for hate speech . From an Austrian left-wing point of view, my offense was compounded by the fact that my seminars were held under the auspices of the FP. Despite its popularity with Austrian voters, the FP is reviled as a xenophobic party by leftist media and politicians.

The complaint against me was not filed by the state, but rather by NEWS magazine, the publication whose reporter had infiltrated the seminar. For the next ten months the possibility of a formal charge was left hanging over my head, but I received no official word about what might happen to me. All I could do was retain legal counsel and wait.

In April 2010 I gave a deposition to the Office for the Protection of the Constitution and Prevention of Terrorism. After that there was nothing from the prosecutors office. Finally, on September 15, I learned that a formal charge would be filed against me. A few days later I received official notice from the court: my trial date would be November 23, 2010.

During my trial the issue of pedophilia came up, in light of Muhammads status as the perfect example for Muslims, as stated in Quran 33:21. I explained what the hadith collections are, and that they constitute an indispensable part of Islamic scripture. I emphasized that I had made up none of what I said, but simply quoted canonical Islamic scripture concerning Muhammads conduct, including his marriage to a little girl named Aisha.

The trial was then adjourned until the following January. At the second hearing, excerpts from the seminar recordings were played back, demonstrating that the original charge of incitement to hatred was unjustified.

The judge then discussed my statement that the conduct of Muhammad is exemplary for Muslims, and took particular issue with the statement What would this behavior be called today, if not pedophilia? which was a reference to the prophets marriage to a six-year-old girl.

Evidently aware that the charge of incitement to hatred was never going to fly, the judge, at her own discretion, eventually announced a new charge: Denigration of religious beliefs of a legally recognized religion. My defense was unprepared for this, and requested that the trial be adjourned.

When court reconvened in February, events moved swiftly to a close. The judge decided that the language used in my seminars did not incite hatred, but the utterances regarding Muhammad and pedophilia were punishable. In particular, the judge found that the use of pedophilia was factually incorrect, as this is a sexual preference solely or mainly directed towards children. The judge stated that this cannot apply to Muhammad, who was still married to Aisha when she attained the age of 18. Thus, I was found not guilty on the count of incitement to hatred, but guilty on the charge of denigration of religious beliefs of a legally recognized religion, to be punished with a 480 fine or 60 days in prison.

The charge on which I was convicted was ludicrous on the face of it. Not only did I never say that Muhammads actions constituted pedophilia, but Muhammads actions which were undisputed by the court included having sex with a nine-year-old girl. If I had said what I was accused of, it would have been nothing more than the simple truth, and unremarkable to any normal, sane person.

I appealed my conviction to a higher court. In December, 2011, the verdict was upheld. Later the case was considered by the Austrian Supreme Court, which upheld the verdict in December, 2013.

I have exhausted my options for justice in Austria, so the case was put before the European Court of Human Rights. It was accepted, and has been pending now for several years.

Whichever way the court decides, the verdict will have implications for citizens throughout Europe, and not just for Austrians. If my conviction is overturned, it will set an important precedent for the freedom to criticize religions and religiously-sanctioned conduct.

If, on the other hand, my conviction is upheld, the situation will be dire indeed. To quote the words of British Foreign Secretary Sir Edward Grey, spoken on August 3, 1914: The lamps are going out all over Europe; we shall not see them lit again in our life-time.

***************

When taken together, the events Ive described tonight paint a picture of a Europe that is careening over the multicultural cliff. The traditional cultures and nations of Europe are being deliberately deconstructed so that a borderless society with no national identities can be constructed on top of the ruins.

And a borderless Europe is simply a precursor to a borderless global society. This future entity is commonly referred to as the New World Order or global governance, and it is intended to be an unaccountable worldwide system of management and control modeled on the United Nations. A totalitarian behemoth to paraphrase what George Orwell said: If you want a vision of the globalist future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face forever.

However, recent reactions to the European migration crisis indicate that events may not in fact be unfolding as planned. The response of most of the member states of the European Union has been to tighten up their borders and reinstitute border controls. Just last week Austria began fortifying its border crossing with Italy on the Brenner Pass, in anticipation of a new surge of 300,000 immigrants that is expected to arrive in Italy this year. Immigrants dont want to stay in Italy or Greece they want to move north to Austria, Germany, Britain, and Sweden, where the welfare benefits are the most generous. The Austrian government is well aware of the northward trajectory of the migrants, and is acting to forestall it, just as it did last winter when it closed the Balkan route.

The successive closure of European borders is widely seen as the death-knell of the Schengen Agreement, under which all but two EU countries (plus four non-EU countries) had been effectively borderless for internal travel purposes. When EU political leaders meet to discuss the crisis, it is often with the stated intention of saving Schengen. But Schengen is already dead they just dont realize it.

Paradoxically, even as they close their borders to more immigrants, European countries are cracking down harder on domestic dissent on the topic of immigration and Islam. In Germany and Britain people are being arrested for posting messages that criticize immigrants or Islam on social media. Police in Berlin recently raided ten residences after their occupants had voiced anti-migrant sentiments on Facebook. A man in Belgium spoke negatively about Muslims who celebrated the Brussels massacre, and was immediately visited at his home by three policemen, who requested that he refrain from such criticism in future.

If European countries are now determined to keep out future migrants, why are they cracking down on citizens who criticize immigration?

The short answer is: there are millions of immigrants already here. Hence they must be placated. If criticizing them makes them angry and causes them to take to the streets in violent demonstrations, then criticism of them must be outlawed.

I dont need to tell you that most of these millions of immigrants are Muslims. Thats why criticism of Islam must be vigorously suppressed. Notwithstanding the much-trumpeted status of Islam as a religion of peace, Muslims in Europe are notoriously prone to violence, and are always ready to take to the streets at a moments notice. They may begin with loud chanting and signs that say behead those who insult the prophet, but they more than likely will escalate rapidly to throwing rocks, assaulting the police, burning cars, vandalizing property, and other forms of general mayhem.

No, its better (and easier) to silence the critics of Islam, in the hope that mob violence may be postponed for a just little while longer.

Exceptions to the general repression may be found in EU member states of the former East Bloc. It seems that people who survived decades under communism are less susceptible to the tyranny of political correctness. An alliance known as the Visegrd Group was formed in Central Europe after the fall of the Iron Curtain and is currently led by Prime Minister Viktor Orbn of Hungary, President Milo Zeman of the Czech Republic, and Prime Minister Robert Fico of Slovakia. Not only do these countries allow dissent on the issue of Islam, their political leaders are among the foremost Islam-critics what they say into the microphones in their state broadcasting studios is the same thing that prompted the prosecution of Geert Wilders, Tommy Robinson, and myself.

Nowadays those former communist dictatorships host the freest speech in Europe.

And the Visegrd Group is also resisting the mandatory quotas of refugees that the European Union is trying to impose. Hungary, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, and Poland have all declined to take in any of Mrs. Merkels refugees. President Zeman and Prime Ministers Orbn and Fico have gone so far as to state that they specifically do not want any Muslimimmigrants that Islam is incompatible with a free democratic society.

In the most recent example of former East Bloc resistance, on Sunday April 10 Romanian citizens took to the streets to protest a mega-mosque planned for Bucharest. We fought the Ottomans for eight hundred years we dont want any mosques! such were the chants of the demonstrators on the streets of Bucharest.

The future of Europe may depend on these stalwart patriots behind what used to be the Iron Curtain. They are leading the way showing the cowardly political leaders of Western Europe how these things could and should be done.

***************

Ladies and Gentlemen,

You may be asking yourselves, Why should I care about whats happening in Europe? These things are thousands of miles and an ocean away from here let the Europeans sort it out for themselves.

There are two practical reasons why what happens in Europe should be of concern to Americans. The first is that an Islamic ascendancy in Europe poses a security threat to the United States. Not only does Western Europe offer a springboard for the Great Jihad to jump the Atlantic, but there are also stockpiles of nuclear weapons and other advanced armaments in Europe. There are already far too many Muslims in the ranks of the military in France and Britain. What will happen when the tipping point is finally reached, and the sleeper cells are activated?

The second reason is that your own government is attempting to replicate the European model right here in the United States. Under the so-called Refugee Resettlement Program, thousands of Syrian refugees are being settled all across America. This is being done quietly, whenever possible without consulting local authorities. The U.S. government has acknowledged that it is impossible to vet these migrants properly. Based on what has been happening in Europe, a significant number of those resettled here will be Islamic State terrorists using forged identity documents.

Do you know whether any of these Syrians are being resettled near you?

Does your congressional representative have any idea whats going on? Better ask him!

Europes present is Americas future. The massacres in Paris and Brussels are coming here as soon as enough jihad sleeper cells are in place. The first dark cloud of the coming storm appeared last December over San Bernardino, California. When it breaks fully, it will be fierce indeed.

Those who plan a borderless world are just as intent on overwhelming the United States with third-world immigrants as they are France, Germany, and Britain. Undermining national sovereignty is the name of the game, throughout the entire Western world.

Your migration wave includes more Latin Americans than Muslims, but thousands of Muslims are indeed arriving. And an undetermined number of Latin migrants who walk across your southern border are in fact Muslims from the Middle East, who have acquired forged papers and learned a little bit of Spanish so that they can pass for Mexicans when they arrive in Laredo or San Diego.

Yes, the Great Jihad will arrive here all too soon.

I urge you to exercise your fundamental constitutional rights while you still can. Speak up and speak out against what is happening at every opportunity. And thank God for your First Amendment! We dont have that in Europe, and I wish we did thanks to the Bill of Rights, prosecuting dissenters is much more difficult here in the USA.

And thank God for the Second Amendment! Most Europeans have no ready access to legal firearms. When the refugees assault them, invade their homes, and rape their women and children, they cannot defend themselves. The only thing they can do is to call the police and, as you all know, when seconds matter, the police are only minutes away.

So I implore you, as American citizens and patriots: Hang on to your hard-won rights! The Constitution is being taken away from you, bit by bit take action while you still can. You are fortunate to live in the United States, but large forces are arrayed against you. Your enemies many of whom are right here in America make no bones about what they intend. They want to eradicate American exceptionalism and make the USA just like Europe a subjugated state.

As for myself, I will continue to speak the truth, no matter what. I owe as much to my daughter, and her children and childrens children. No matter the final outcome, I want her to be able to say: My mother did everything she possibly could.

Europeans and Americans share a common heritage. We must hang together, or we will surely hang separately.

I urge you to stand with me!

See more here:
Redefreiheit in Gefahr - IN DEFENSE OF FREE SPEECH

There is a conflict between the desire for respectful speech and free speech, and nowhere is it more clearly manifested than on college campuses. At the University of Missouri last November, student protesters physically tried to eject a student journalist from a protest area. Following the incident, Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times wrote, Moral voices can also become sanctimonious bullies. One month earlier, the Wesleyan student government voted to cut funding for the school newspaper after it ran an op-ed criticizing Black Lives Matter. There are countless incidents in which speakers have been protested and cancelled on the basis of their ideas.

The New Culture of Self-Censorship

But do these incidents accurately reflect the views of a majority of college students? Is it fair to describe student activism as wholly intolerant? I remain unconvinced. It seems more likely that the anti-speech actions of an extremely small minority are magnified by the media frenzy surrounding each incident, creating the misconception that these views are more common than they actually are.

When a speaker gets cancelled or a newspaper loses funding, the short-term impact is the censoring of that particular viewpoint. But the long-term (and more significant) impact is the signal sent about what type of speech is acceptable. Free speechin its most crucial and effective formis not simply a constitutional right under the First Amendment, but a fragile culture. It means that people should feel that they can go out and argue whatever they want. Without it, even the strongest legal and institutional protections are meaningless. Culture is invaluable in determining what people feel they can and cant do; seeing other people openly discussing controversial ideas makes people much more likely to do so themselves. Conversely, seeing others punished for airing their opinions makes people scared and reluctant to speak out.

The result is self-censorship. There is the fear that one small misstep will result in being on the receiving end of the safe space shaming bludgeon that is so prominently broadcasted nationwide. People struggle to abide by the new norm of emotional respect in an intellectual space, shying away from potentially controversial speech that might challenge cultural orthodoxies. In certain corners of thought, ideological vibrancy is eroded and replaced by a respectful staleness. Richard Wang 20 commented, You always run the risk. You dont want to offend anyone, so you self-censor yourself Theres a small group of people that is loud about being anti-free speech, which has a big role in determining the on-campus culture but isnt representative of the opinions of the student body.

The Administrative Role

Surely, the Harvard administration can play an active role in fostering this delicate and essential culture of free speech. While official institutional policies can occasionally be used directly to protect speech, their real effect is as an indirect indicator to students of what the on-campus culture should be like.

A bottom-up effort by students to avoid self-censorship should be attempted, but it is erroneous to put the onus on individuals to take the stance against anti-speech backlash. The words and actions of the administration are crucial in determining what type of culture develops on campus. We need a top-down approach by the administration to correct the root of the issue, which is the idea that we should strive to attain emotional comfort in an intellectual setting.

This was the purpose of the recent University of Chicago letter on safe spaces and free speecha clear reaffirmation of the value of free speech over emotional respect. The anti-speech actions of a small but vocal minority have been broadcasted so loudly thatif free speech is a culture we want to encourageit is often a necessary evil at this point in the national conversation to state pro-speech stances in a loud, direct, and unequivocal way. Statements couched in qualifiers and diplomatic phrasing just blend into the drab background noise of agreeable administrative policies. The letter was criticized for being attention-seeking, but that was its exact intent: to proudly draw attention to the idea of free inquiry as a crucial pillar of academic life. The fact that we have essentially devolved into a national shouting match over free speech may not make anyone particularly pleased, but it is necessary to acknowledge that the blunt and overly simplistic characteristics of the letter were a reflection of how our dialogue on the issue looks right now.

Kids These Days

But we must avoid devolving into a situation where administrators are just dictating pro-speech policy down to students. It is not constructive to impose normative statements as incontrovertible truths that must be accepted by students without debate. Unfortunately, a fair amount of free speech defense today takes the form of aggrieved op-eds penned by writers who are quite fond of lamenting the current state of young people or complaining loudly about coddled millennials. Unfortunately, these statements are often counterproductive. Will Creeley, vice president of legal and public advocacy at the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, elaborated in an interview with the HPR, I get nervous about the steady drumbeat of kids these days articles where theres some kind of imagined tension between millennials and freedom of expression. I mean, Im not that old. I remember that its not pleasant or interesting to be lectured by ones elders. And I think that if we get to a position where free speech is older telling younger people to eat your vegetables, it becomes less useful.

There is an inherent hypocrisy in some parts of the free speech movement. The same individuals who believe that it is not constructive to dismiss people as racists readily dismiss young people as infantilized crybabies who cannot possibly comprehend why free speech is important. But to do so reveals an underlying intellectual smugness, insularity, and close-mindedness, a belief that vast swaths of people who have different opinions than you are simply not worth your time. It is a refusal to consider why people believe certain things or feel the way they do. This approach is unlikely to lead to the productive dialogue and engagement that advocates of free speech claim to value.

Instead, it is crucial to characterize student activists fairly and attempt to understand their motivations. Conor Healy 19 reflects, I just think Ive had more time to grow and understand exactly why people want to limit speech. I dont think that these are necessarily bad people. I think they have noble intentions, and I have made a conscious effort to understand why there is so much emotion in this sphere and why people are so fervent about their beliefs on this issue.

The focus must be on engaging with, and not berating studentsthe next generationand striving to convince them why allowing for all types of speech is tremendously crucial. Because despite the occasional shocking examples of censorship that are feverishly offered up in sensational Atlantic articles, most students do agree that free speech is important and should be protected. I have read survey results showing that todays students dont appreciate the principles of free speech, said Harvard psychology professor Steven Pinker in an email interview with the HPR. But I have never witnessed it at Harvard. Ive found that the students in my classes, my lab, and my office visits are completely reasonable and clear-thinking.

It is true that free speech is threatened on college campuses. Too often, free inquiry is sacrificed as we grow increasingly more reluctant to poke the bear of cultural orthodoxy. But to properly defend free speech, we must return to its fundamental principles. We must engage with those we vehemently disagree with instead of continuing to shout past each other. Ultimately, free speech is an enormously important but fragile social practice, and everyonestudents and administrators, liberals and conservatives, young and oldshould strive to protect and cherish it.

Image Credit: Flickr/JAM Project

Read the original:
Defending a Culture of Free Speech - Harvard Political Review

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.

View post:
Stifling free speech: Academia's 'Cone of Silence' - Tribune-Review