Category Archives: Freedom of Speech

Riots at American colleges to prevent unpopular speakers are becoming more and more commonplace. Berkeley and Middlebury may well be the beginning of a new tactic with leftist students to silence their opposition.

Of course, new bills designed to prevent the riotingare being attacked on grounds that they ... infringe on students' freedom of speech:

The intent of these bills isnt to protect student speech; its actually to suppress it in favor of guest speakers who, at times, support white nationalism, LGBTQ discrimination and other hateful worldviews. By funding the Phoenix-based Goldwater Institute, wealthy conservatives are enabling the promotion of hate speech while stifling student dissent.

Whether or not Koch, for example, agrees with the hate speech he indirectly sponsors, he certainly benefits from a more friendly academic environment for far-right ideologues who often deny climate change and praise his extreme brand of tax- and regulation-free capitalism.

The Goldwater Institutes model bill allegedly ensures the fullest degree of free expression, but it explicitly states that protests and demonstrations that infringe upon the rights of others to engage in or listen to expressive activity shall not be permitted and shall be subject to sanction.

It goes on to say, Any student who has twice been found responsible for infringing the expressive rights of others will be suspended for a minimum of one year, or expelled.

Under this code, imagine that a student protests a climate change denier and gets a brief suspension. Then the College Republicans group brings in a full-on white nationalist. Will this student do what she thinks is right and protest a racist whos given a platform at a respected university, or stay home because she's risking expulsion?

This campus "free speech legislation is essentially an attack on student speech and an elevation of ultra-conservative ideas that many people in university communities think have no place in American society.

Keep in mind this billspecifically targets activities that infringe on someone else's right to free speech. A peaceful demonstrationdoes no such thing.

Setting fires, throwing rocks, and assaulting people is a whole other kettle of fish -- and that is apparently what this student fears losing the "right" to do.

If there are concerns that the proposal is too vague, I might be willing to listen. However, most of those who are taking issue with it aren't doing so because they're worried it will be misapplied to those who peacefully protest. They're taking issue with it because it's another tool that can be used against those who engage in politically motivated violence and threats in an attempt to quell disagreement with their positions.

By trying to silence their opposition, they're admitting they can't win in the market of ideas. Maybe these measures will force them to step up and at least try harder to present sound arguments.

Read this article:
Student Fears Crackdown on Anti-Free Speech Riots Threatens Free Speech - PJ Media

Peter Dutton casts himself as championing freedom of speech.

Peter Dutton has advised Alan Joyce and other business executives who have written to Malcolm Turnbull urging action on same-sex marriage to stick to their knitting. Its advice some in the government would think he himself should take.

The Immigration Minister has launched a sustained jihad against the more than 30 business leaders who signed the letter, returning to the fray in his weekend speech to the Queensland Liberal National Party State Council and a press conference.

While he might argue this issue transcends portfolios, his strident intervention unhelpfully adds to Turnbulls problem with freelancing ministers and highlights divisions within the government. In response fellow cabinet ministers Julie Bishop and Simon Birmingham publicly defended the business leaders right to have their say.

Birmingham didnt mince words. I think throughout history, business leaders have often stepped ahead of legislators in supporting reforms related to gender equity or racial equity. And I see no reason as to why business leaders are not free to do likewise when it comes to issues like marriage equality.

Duttons attack deserves close attention because he is seen, and sees himself, as the conservatives flag waver in cabinet and has recently been talked up in the media as a possible future leader.

In their letter, the business leaders said the time has come to resolve this important reform, calling on Turnbull to legislate for marriage equality so the Government can get on with its core economic agenda. They outlined what they saw as a compelling business case for change. This included the interests of their employees, meeting the values of customers, and Australias global reputation as a welcoming and inclusive nation.

Duttons counter was scattergun. Speaking to 2GBs Ray Hadley last week he ranged from denouncing the business leaders right to act as they did to his personal gripe with Telstras customer service.

Delivering a shot across their bow, he told Hadley that CEOs on big dollars should concentrate on their businesses and the improvement of the economy. Social issues should be left up to the politicians, to the leaders, to talkback hosts like yourself, to normal people who can have those discussions without the millions of dollars being thrown behind campaigns because somehow it makes the board feel better or meets their social obligation.

He had a serious dummy spit over his home phone. My view of Telstra is that theyd be better off to concentrate their efforts on cleaning up their call centre operations because we had a problem with our phone at home last week I lead a fairly busy life, the thought of hanging on the phone for an hour to some person in the Philippines and still getting nowhere at the end of the call drives me crazy.

"Now, heres a suggestion for Telstra. Instead of getting caught up and spending you investors money, your shareholders money on all these political causes, what about tidying up your own backyard first and providing a proper standard of care and service to your customers?

At the weekend it was the turn of Qantas to be singled out. Alan Joyce, the individual, is perfectly entitled to campaign for, and spend his hard earned money on, any issue he sees fit, but dont do it in the official capacity and with shareholders money. And certainly dont use an iconic brand and the might of a multi-billion dollar business on issues best left to the judgement of individuals and elected decision-makers.

And in the wake of social media pressure forcing Coopers Brewery to back away from its association with a Bible Society ad featuring a same-sex marriage debate between two Liberal MPs - Dutton said it was unconscionable that some companies were morally coerced into supporting campaigns in fear of being extorted by an online social media push to boycott their product.

Dutton casts himself as championing freedom of speech. But in todays acrimonious culture war, those calling for more free speech are squealing increasingly loudly when others exercise their freedom in a way they dont like.

This indeed was the business leaders speaking freely, and they obviously believe their stand will advance or protect their businesses interests.

One wonders if Dutton would be lashing out if they had written to Turnbull supporting a change in 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act in the name of freedom of speech.

As for his argument that the CEOs are using shareholder funds, Dutton has so far produced no backup for this, unless he is referring to their own salaries.

When it comes to social media, the exhortations by online campaigns for people to boycott products surely falls under freedom of speech. (Its a different matter if substantive threats are made.)

The tone of these campaigns can be offensive - but remember that in the 18C debate, the conservatives want the removal of the reference to offend.

Dutton has a particular interest in GetUps ability to campaign. GetUp mobilised against him at the last election, when his margin was cut.

Meanwhile Turnbull continues to stick to the plebiscite policy on same-sex marriage. He has little option.

Dutton was blunt at the weekend: The partys position has been very clear and we are not going to deviate from that position.

For some of the conservatives, same-sex marriage has become rather like the carbon issue was in 2009, when Turnbull was opposition leader.

Then, many in his party were unhappy with him, as many are at present.

His commitment to an emissions trading scheme lit the fuse. Bizarre as it sounds, a fuse could be lit if Turnbull walked away from the plebiscite policy to embrace a parliamentary vote, as the business leaders want. Which is presumably why he wont do it any time soon, although how he gets to a viable policy to take to the election is anyones guess.

Most immediately, he has to deal with the issue of section 18C. This is due to go to cabinet for discussion on Monday. A report from a parliamentary inquiry recommended a suite of changes to the processes of the Human Rights Commission but left open the question of the future of the wording to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate that the conservatives want changed.

The politically savvy course especially with a view to campaigning in seats with large ethnic votes - would be to fix the processes and leave the wording. But that wont satisfy those conservatives set on a culture war mission.

Postscript

As Parliament resumes on Monday, Newspoll in The Australian sees an improvement in the Governments position and that of Malcolm Turnbull.

Labors two-party lead has been cut to 52-48%, compared with 55-45% three weeks ago.

The Coalitions primary vote has risen from 34% to 37%, while Labors has fallen from 37% to 35%. The Greens are down a point to 9%.

Turnbull leads Bill Shorten as better prime minister by 14 points (43-29%) compared with his seven point lead in the last poll, at the end of February. Turnbulls net satisfaction has improved from minus 30 to minus 27, while Shortens has worsened from minus 26 to minus 28.

Follow this link:
Free speech? It depends who you are, in Peter Dutton's view - The Conversation AU

One bill currently in the New York State legislature would fine individuals or website or search engine operators for refusing to remove online material deemed to be inaccurate, irrelevant, inadequate, or excessive. Three other bills already passed by the state senate would, among other things, deny funding tostudent groupsat public universities who advocate for Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) of Israel and other U.S. allied nations.

The first bill A05323 and S04561, the Right to be forgotten act would require any individual (including all search engines, indexers, publishers and any other persons) to remove, upon the request of any individual, information, articles, identifying information, and other content about such individual, as well as links, that is inaccurate, irrelevant, inadequate, or excessive.

The bill includes this vague and arbitrary definition of what constitutes inaccurate, irrelevant, inadequate, or excessive information:

For purposes of this section, "inaccurate", "irrelevant", "inadequate", or "excessive" shall mean content, which after a significant lapse in time from its first publication, is no longer material to current public debate or discourse, especially when considered in light of the financial, reputational and/or demonstrable other harm that the information, article or other content is causing to the requesters professional, financial, reputational or other interest, with the exception of content related to convicted felonies, legal matters relating to violence, or a matter that is of significant current public interest, and as to which the requester's role with regard to the matter is central and substantial.

Violators who do not comply and take down the objectionable information within 30 days after receiving a removal request will be subject to a fine equal to the actual monetary loss for each violation, or statutory damages in the amount of $250 for each day of the violation after the removal request, whichever is greater. Additionally, notes the bill, the party who does not honor the removal request will have to pay to the requester any and all costs and attorneys fees incurred while enforcing his or her rights under this act.

Since determining the actual monetary loss of the requester would be difficult outside of a court of law, this law obviously encourages litigation hence its reference to the recovery of attorneys fees.

The law also opens a Pandoras Box of potential litigation by holding liable not only the individual originally posting the objectionable information, but also all site managers of all articles and other content that either is presently being made available on the internet, or other widely used computer-based network, program or service, regardless of when such articles and other content was first so or otherwise posted, published or otherwise made available."

Anyone who frequently uses online social networking sites understands how readily users share material from one users page to anothers. And writers who publish online frequently cite material from other writers and include links to other articles within their own. This means that once objectionable material has been shared or copied onto other sites, each and every other site manager becomes liable to be fined if they do not remove it. If passed, this law would create a legal nightmare.

The Right to be forgotten act has not been acted on, and if common sense prevails, it never will be. However, three other bills already passed by the New York State Senate would also attack free speech. They would, respectively, 1): deny funding tostudent groupsat public universities who advocate for Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) of Israel and American allied nations; 2): deny public universities from using state money to fund membership in, or travel and lodging for a meeting of, an academic association that boycotts Israel; and, 3): create a blacklist to deny state contracts to and investment inindividuals, organizations, and businesses that boycott American allied nations.

A commentary on these bills posted by The Bill of Rights Defense Committee/Defending Dissent Foundation serves to make clear the distinction between personal or partisan positions on political or foreign policy issues and the fundamental right to freedom of speech. It notes:

The bills specifically target critics of Israels policies toward Palestinians. While as a civil liberties organization we take no position on the Israel-Palestine conflict, we recognize that the speech targeted by these bills is exactly what the First Amendment is designed to protect.Bills that attack the right to protest impact all of us adversely.

The groups post then continues by summarizing the three individual bills:

S.2493 Would deny funding tostudent groupsat public universities who advocate for Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) of Israel and American allied nations...

S.4837Would deny public universities from using state money to fund membership in, or travel and lodging for a meeting of, an academic association that boycotts Israel.

S.2492Would create a blacklist to deny state contracts to and investment inindividuals, organizations, and businesses that boycott American allied nations.

When we read the rest of S.2492, we find that allied nations means many nations besides Israel. It includes all NATO member nations, any country that was a signer of SEATO in 1954, any country other than Venezuela that is a signer of the Rio Treaty of 1947, and the individual nations (besides Israel) of Ireland, Japan, and the Republic of Korea (South Korea).

Considering the large number of nations included in the above definition, and the many possible policies all of these nations might take on a number of issues, some of which an American might approve of and some of which an American might quite legitimately, in good conscience, disapprove of, the proposed bill would most certainly constitute a deterrent to freedom of speech.

Continuing, The Bill of Rights Defense Committee post observes:

The Supreme Court has explicitly stated boycotts for political, economic, and social change are protected political speech under the First Amendment. The Supreme Court has also ruled that the state cannot deny public benefits based on individuals or organizations exercise of free speech rights. Courts across the country have also continuously found that public universities cannot deny funding or other resources to student groups, because of their political point of view.

Another article published by Breitbart last June about a predecessor to S. 2493 introduced in the New York legislature during last years session questions the constitutionality of that legislation, which in addition to naming boycotts of allied nations, also included boycotts against a person or group based on race, class, gender, nationality, ethnic origin or religion as grounds for withholding funding. The article stated:

The bill is potentially a violation of the 1st Amendment, as universities must be consistently neutral when it comes to funding student groups. The Washington Post notes, In a series of decisions, [the Supreme] Court has emphasized that the First Amendment generally precludes public universities from denying student organizations access to school-sponsored forums because of the groups viewpoints.

As terms such as discrimination, intolerance, and hate speech are subjective and open to interpretation, the universities would be actively engaging in viewpoint discrimination.

Self-identified liberals are fond of citing academic freedom as a principle guaranteeing that all viewpoints should be allowed to be freely expressed on our nations campuses. However, in reality, anyone attempting to express any viewpoint other than whatever the current liberal cause du jour is will quickly find that freedom of expression does not apply to him or her.

Go here to read the rest:
Bills in New York State Legislature Target Free Speech - The New American

I ask you, is a petition that only represents 0.19% of Canadians a democratically valid basis for enacting any manner of legislation

Iqra Khalid MP, MississaugaErin Mills 3100 Ridgeway Drive, Suite 35 Mississauga, Ontario L5L 5M5 Telephone: 905-820-8814 Fax: 905-820-4068

Dear Ms. Khalid;

I find your motion before the Canadian Parliament listed below to be offensive and if transmuted into law or metastasized into a crown inquiry by any manner of legislative or political chicanery; an act of political violence against one of the most sacrosanct cornerstones and inalienable rights of free speech, long recognized via Anglo-Saxon Common Law and our Judeo-Christian heritage. Many a monarch or totalitarian dictator have in the distant past or immediate present given their seal to laws that oppressed those who were in vocal opposition to the draconian rules said rulers unilaterally imposed on their subjects. While freedom of speech was a sacrosanct concept, there were also longstanding laws covering slander and libel that gave those who felt impugned by anothers freedom of speech to seek redress and legal remedy in the courts and juries of 12 peers that are also an integral part of Anglo-Saxon Common Law and our Judea-Christian heritage. Despite predating it by a millennium, this concept of seeking redress before a jury of 12 peers, was first codified into the Magna Carta over 800 years ago by Stephen Langton, the Archbishop of Canterbury. Political Correctness and the labeling of free speech as Hate speech are Marxist concepts to silence all forms of legitimate dissent in otherwise free societies.

Justin Trudeau has moved the 2nd reading of Motion M103 from April to March 21, 2017:

Text of the Motion That, in the opinion of the House, the government should: (a) recognize the need to quell the increasing public climate of hate and fear; (b) condemn Islamophobia and all forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination and take note of House of Commons petition e-411 and the issues raised by it; and (c) request that the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage undertake a study on how the government could (i) develop a whole-of-government approach to reducing or eliminating systemic racism and religious discrimination including Islamophobia, in Canada, while ensuring a community-centered focus with a holistic response through evidence-based policy-making, (ii) collect data to contextualize hate crime reports and to conduct needs assessments for impacted communities, and that the Committee should present its findings and recommendations to the House no later than 240 calendar days from the adoption of this motion, provided that in its report, the Committee should make recommendations that the government may use to better reflect the enshrined rights and freedoms in the Constitution Acts, including the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

You use petition e-411 as justification for your anti-Islamophobia motion, the numbers thereof are listed below:

Figure 1 E-411 statistics

I ask you, is a petition that only represents 0.19% of Canadians a democratically valid basis for enacting any manner of legislation, especially legislation that would effectively curtail freedom of speech? Especially when you consider that 1.59 percent of the respondents were from other countries and represent a higher percentage of the total than either the total population of Newfoundland and Labrador, Northwest Territories, Nunavut, Prince Edward Island or Yukon is a percentage of the total Canadian population. Since when do other countries have any say in Canadian affairs and legislative matters? I also note that the response from Ontario was 164.71% of the population ratio; completely disproportionate.

Why mention Islamophobia, and not Christophobia or Anti-Semitism, both of which have been growing in leaps and bounds? If Islamophobia is such a problem, then why not be completely honest and identify the root cause of the Islamophobia? The plain definition of Phobia is an extreme or irrational fear of or aversion to something and I ask you, are Canadians or those in any western civilized country having extreme or irrational fears about the Islamists, Jihadists or Radical Islam or rather legitimate concerns? Why not have a motion condemning Radical Islam, Islamists or Islamic Jihad, because if these scourges on the Judeo-Christian heritage of western civilizations, and the umma in general were eliminated there would be nothing for people to develop Islamophobia from!

You cant even be as intellectually honest as Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi was months before the Charlie Hebdo attack when he spoke at the most revered institute of Islamic learning Al-Azhar University and spoke to Imams on New Years Day, this is a translated excerpt of his speech.

I am referring here to the religious clerics. ... Its inconceivable that the thinking that we hold most sacred should cause the entire umma (Islamic world) to be a source of anxiety, danger, killing and destruction for the rest of the world. Impossible!

That thinkingI am not saying religion but thinkingthat corpus of texts and ideas that we have sacralized over the centuries, to the point that departing from them has become almost impossible, is antagonizing the entire world. Its antagonizing the entire world! ... All this that I am telling you, you cannot feel it if you remain trapped within this mindset. You need to step outside of yourselves to be able to observe it and reflect on it from a more enlightened perspective.

I say and repeat again that we are in need of a religious revolution. You, imams, are responsible before Allah. The entire world, I say it again, the entire world is waiting for your next move ... because this umma is being torn, it is being destroyed, it is being lostand it is being lost by our own hands.

You received a far better education than Muslims like Malala Yousafzai who nearly lost her life by standing up to the Taliban for her right to have an education in your birth country; so why not criticize those who nearly snuffed out her life over something that you are obviously taking for granted, instead of the legitimate fear that many more Canadians that signed your petition have over what occurred to Malala?

Words have meanings and I note that you used the word quell in your motion: put an end to (a rebellion or other disorder), typically by the use of force

Is this not an oxymoron then I dont know what is, as the root of any Islamophobia, if it exists, is the fear of the use of force that the Jihadists and Islamist are perpetrating on a daily basis. Perhaps you can enlighten us by documenting all the different religious ideologies whose fanatics adopt the chant Allahu Akbar that have nothing to do with Islam? I might note that a significant percentage of hard core Nazis were Catholic before being radicalized and their battle cry was not Hail Mary but rather Sieg Heil!

I wonder what sort of phobia the LGBT community has in majority Muslim nations when they are stoned to death or thrown off the nearest roof or both?

What about the fear of rape amongst the many women sold into sexual slavery or married at age of 12 and younger? There is a term Virgivitiphobia, however the Latin Virgi means of a marriageable age and in Canada or most other civilized western countries, 12 and younger is not a marriageable age!

Given the disproportionate response to petition e-411 coming from Ontario, it is my opinion that you are just another pathetic politician, practicing taqiyya and pandering to an identifiable constituency group for re-election and are showing little respect for the Judeo-Christian heritage of Canada. It would do you and the rest of Canada a world of good for you to return to the country of your birth for a few years and try and further your education in the same manner as Malala Yousafzai was trying, before shoving your Islamophobic myths and Sharia Laws down the throats of Canadians in an effort to silence their right of free speech over being legitimately appalled by the acts of the Islamists and Jihadists in the name of Radical Islam that you are obviously afraid to criticize in your aforementioned motion.

Desmond McGrath

I will not be silenced by your taqiyya based motions.

See the rest here:
Iqra Khalid's Islamic Crusade to suppress freedom of speech under ... - Canada Free Press

By: Leong Sze Hian

I refer to the High Commissioner of Singapore, Londons letter Free speech in Singapore (The Economist, Mar 17).

It states that Grumble and be damned (March 11th) alleged a lack of free speech in Singapore. Yet Singaporeans have free access to information and the internet, including to The Economist and the BBC. We do not stifle criticism of the government. But we will not allow our judiciary to be denigrated under the cover of free speech, nor will we protect hate or libellous speech. People can go to court to defend their integrity and correct falsehoods purveyed against them. Opposition politicians have done this, successfully.

You cited the case of three protesters convicted for creating a public nuisance at Speakers Corner. They were not charged for criticising the government, but for loutishly barging into a performance by a group of special-education-needs children, frightening them and denying them the right to be heard.

I googled and found that the following organisations have issued statements in regards to the above case at Speakers Corner:

United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights Report of the Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association (Jun 16,2016)

International Federation for Human Rights(FIDH) Conviction of three peaceful protestors condemned (Feb 22, 2017)

United Nations Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression; Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association; and Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders To the Singapore Government vide the Ambassador of Singapore to the United nations (Oct 30, 2015)

Amnesty International Conviction of activists must be overturned (Feb 21, 2017)

Human Rights Watch World Report 2015 on Singapore

Frontlinedefenders: Human Rights Defender Han Hui Hui case file

It would appear from the above that the weight of world opinion seems to be contrary to Singapores.

The discerning reader may like to read the above and make an informed judgement as to who or what makes more or less sense?

View post:
Freedom of speech: S'pore in the eyes the world? - The Independent

I ask you, is a petition that only represents 0.19% of Canadians a democratically valid basis for enacting any manner of legislation

Iqra Khalid MP, MississaugaErin Mills 3100 Ridgeway Drive, Suite 35 Mississauga, Ontario L5L 5M5 Telephone: 905-820-8814 Fax: 905-820-4068

Dear Ms. Khalid;

I find your motion before the Canadian Parliament listed below to be offensive and if transmuted into law or metastasized into a crown inquiry by any manner of legislative or political chicanery; an act of political violence against one of the most sacrosanct cornerstones and inalienable rights of free speech, long recognized via Anglo-Saxon Common Law and our Judeo-Christian heritage. Many a monarch or totalitarian dictator have in the distant past or immediate present given their seal to laws that oppressed those who were in vocal opposition to the draconian rules said rulers unilaterally imposed on their subjects. While freedom of speech was a sacrosanct concept, there were also longstanding laws covering slander and libel that gave those who felt impugned by anothers freedom of speech to seek redress and legal remedy in the courts and juries of 12 peers that are also an integral part of Anglo-Saxon Common Law and our Judea-Christian heritage. Despite predating it by a millennium, this concept of seeking redress before a jury of 12 peers, was first codified into the Magna Carta over 800 years ago by Stephen Langton, the Archbishop of Canterbury. Political Correctness and the labeling of free speech as Hate speech are Marxist concepts to silence all forms of legitimate dissent in otherwise free societies.

Justin Trudeau has moved the 2nd reading of Motion M103 from April to March 21, 2017:

Text of the Motion That, in the opinion of the House, the government should: (a) recognize the need to quell the increasing public climate of hate and fear; (b) condemn Islamophobia and all forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination and take note of House of Commons petition e-411 and the issues raised by it; and (c) request that the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage undertake a study on how the government could (i) develop a whole-of-government approach to reducing or eliminating systemic racism and religious discrimination including Islamophobia, in Canada, while ensuring a community-centered focus with a holistic response through evidence-based policy-making, (ii) collect data to contextualize hate crime reports and to conduct needs assessments for impacted communities, and that the Committee should present its findings and recommendations to the House no later than 240 calendar days from the adoption of this motion, provided that in its report, the Committee should make recommendations that the government may use to better reflect the enshrined rights and freedoms in the Constitution Acts, including the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

You use petition e-411 as justification for your anti-Islamophobia motion, the numbers thereof are listed below:

Figure 1 E-411 statistics

I ask you, is a petition that only represents 0.19% of Canadians a democratically valid basis for enacting any manner of legislation, especially legislation that would effectively curtail freedom of speech? Especially when you consider that 1.59 percent of the respondents were from other countries and represent a higher percentage of the total than either the total population of Newfoundland and Labrador, Northwest Territories, Nunavut, Prince Edward Island or Yukon is a percentage of the total Canadian population. Since when do other countries have any say in Canadian affairs and legislative matters? I also note that the response from Ontario was 164.71% of the population ratio; completely disproportionate.

Why mention Islamophobia, and not Christophobia or Anti-Semitism, both of which have been growing in leaps and bounds? If Islamophobia is such a problem, then why not be completely honest and identify the root cause of the Islamophobia? The plain definition of Phobia is an extreme or irrational fear of or aversion to something and I ask you, are Canadians or those in any western civilized country having extreme or irrational fears about the Islamists, Jihadists or Radical Islam or rather legitimate concerns? Why not have a motion condemning Radical Islam, Islamists or Islamic Jihad, because if these scourges on the Judeo-Christian heritage of western civilizations, and the umma in general were eliminated there would be nothing for people to develop Islamophobia from!

You cant even be as intellectually honest as Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi was months before the Charlie Hebdo attack when he spoke at the most revered institute of Islamic learning Al-Azhar University and spoke to Imams on New Years Day, this is a translated excerpt of his speech.

I am referring here to the religious clerics. ... Its inconceivable that the thinking that we hold most sacred should cause the entire umma (Islamic world) to be a source of anxiety, danger, killing and destruction for the rest of the world. Impossible!

That thinkingI am not saying religion but thinkingthat corpus of texts and ideas that we have sacralized over the centuries, to the point that departing from them has become almost impossible, is antagonizing the entire world. Its antagonizing the entire world! ... All this that I am telling you, you cannot feel it if you remain trapped within this mindset. You need to step outside of yourselves to be able to observe it and reflect on it from a more enlightened perspective.

I say and repeat again that we are in need of a religious revolution. You, imams, are responsible before Allah. The entire world, I say it again, the entire world is waiting for your next move ... because this umma is being torn, it is being destroyed, it is being lostand it is being lost by our own hands.

You received a far better education than Muslims like Malala Yousafzai who nearly lost her life by standing up to the Taliban for her right to have an education in your birth country; so why not criticize those who nearly snuffed out her life over something that you are obviously taking for granted, instead of the legitimate fear that many more Canadians that signed your petition have over what occurred to Malala?

Words have meanings and I note that you used the word quell in your motion: put an end to (a rebellion or other disorder), typically by the use of force

Is this not an oxymoron then I dont know what is, as the root of any Islamophobia, if it exists, is the fear of the use of force that the Jihadists and Islamist are perpetrating on a daily basis. Perhaps you can enlighten us by documenting all the different religious ideologies whose fanatics adopt the chant Allahu Akbar that have nothing to do with Islam? I might note that a significant percentage of hard core Nazis were Catholic before being radicalized and their battle cry was not Hail Mary but rather Sieg Heil!

I wonder what sort of phobia the LGBT community has in majority Muslim nations when they are stoned to death or thrown off the nearest roof or both?

What about the fear of rape amongst the many women sold into sexual slavery or married at age of 12 and younger? There is a term Virgivitiphobia, however the Latin Virgi means of a marriageable age and in Canada or most other civilized western countries, 12 and younger is not a marriageable age!

Given the disproportionate response to petition e-411 coming from Ontario, it is my opinion that you are just another pathetic politician, practicing taqiyya and pandering to an identifiable constituency group for re-election and are showing little respect for the Judeo-Christian heritage of Canada. It would do you and the rest of Canada a world of good for you to return to the country of your birth for a few years and try and further your education in the same manner as Malala Yousafzai was trying, before shoving your Islamophobic myths and Sharia Laws down the throats of Canadians in an effort to silence their right of free speech over being legitimately appalled by the acts of the Islamists and Jihadists in the name of Radical Islam that you are obviously afraid to criticize in your aforementioned motion.

Desmond McGrath

I will not be silenced by your taqiyya based motions.

Read this article:
Iqra Khalid's Islamic Crusade to suppress freedom of speech under ruse of Islamophobia - Canada Free Press

You may think you love the First Amendment. You may get misty-eyed just thinking about it. It calls to mind Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein unraveling the Watergate scandal, Martin Luther King Jr. leading the March on Washington, Voltaire proclaiming, I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. (Voltaire didnt actually say that, but he probably wouldnt mind that you think he did.)

But sooner or later, you will come across something that will make you wonder just whats so great about freedom of speech.

It could be a campus speaker arguing that Adolf Hitler might have been onto something. Or a protester burning an American flag. Or your neighbors teenage son, who just bought a drone on Amazon and is now using it to take pictures of your front yard.

You will not disavow the First Amendment (because you love it, of course). You will squarely place the blame on those idiots who are clearly misinterpreting what it means, who think that free speech is somehow a free pass to be a total jerk. Theyre the problem, you tell yourself. The First Amendment, when applied properly, is great.

Maybe its time for us to come to terms with the truth: While everybody loves the First Amendment in theory, nobodys all that fond of it in practice.

Blue Feed, Red Feed

Consider the massive popularity of partisan media, and, as The Wall Street Journals Blue Feed, Red Feed project has shown, the complete lack of overlap between liberal and conservative Facebook feeds. We love speakers and media outlets that articulate the thoughts that we were already thinking. We can barely tolerate the ones that contradict our world view. As Nat Hentoff argued in his book, Free Speech For Me But Not For Thee, most of us struggle with the desire to relentlessly censor one another.

Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes understood this back in 1919: Persecution for the expression of opinions seems to me perfectly logical. If you ... want a certain result with all your heart, you naturally express your wishes in law, and sweep away all opposition. Of course, he followed this with an instruction to resist this natural urge, and to think of speech as a marketplace where all ideas should be allowed to compete so that the best ideas can emerge victorious.

Its nice to think about a bustling marketplace of ideas, but it might be a little tough to hold that cheery picture in your mind when you think about, say, the First Amendment right to sell dog-fighting videos, or to hold up a Thank God for dead soldiers banner outside a military funeral. When you picture a marketplace, you cant help but assess the value of the goods for sale. Do we really have to make space for the vendors selling rotten fruit, or that candy that contains trace amounts of lead?

Hate speech may be protected by the First Amendment, but what benefit do we actually derive from it? How much did Milo Yiannopouloss controversial campus visits contribute to intelligent debate when his speeches primarily revolved around publicly ridiculing audience members and basking in his own outrageousness? If the point of free speech is to encourage that intellectual marketplace, to make us a better society, why should we care about defending speech that we find intellectually worthless?

But theres another way to look at the First Amendment. Maybe we shouldnt think about free expression in terms of value. Free speech isnt always valuable, no matter how loosely you define that word. Sometimes its hurtful, or nonsensical, or idiotic.

Whats important is that free expression rights are always indivisible. Remember: The First Amendment protects your speech from government censorship. Its meant to keep the power to decide whats valuable expression and what isnt out of the hands of public officials. You are not in competition with the people who disagree with you. In the real conflict, all of us are on the same side: How much control over speech do we want to cede to the people in power?

In other words: Your rights are my rights. This is true even if I hate you. Nevertheless, I have to stand up for your rights to speak, to publish, to protest, even if I think your opinions are junk and you are wrong about everything. Not just in service of a lofty ideal, but also out of my own self-interest.

The same holds true for you, for all of us. You may advocate for hate speech policies that will silence bigots, but once theyre passed, these same laws can be used to silence you. You may support laws that are intended to restrict and neuter public protests, but you will find yourself without many options when it comes time to stand up for a cause that you believe in.

You dont have to love the First Amendment. Just acknowledge we all need it.

Continue reading here:
Free speech isn't always valuable - that's not the point | Columnists ... - The Decatur Daily

In 1938, Gallup asked Americans, "Do you believe in freedom of speech?" and then asked whether free speech should extend to "radicals" and "communists" holding local meetings and expressing their views. While 96% of Americans said yes to the first question, far fewer thought radicals (40%) or communists (36%) should be free to assemble and speak out.

1938: Americans' Views on Free Speech

A decade later, in 1949, Gallup posed a broader question asking Americans whether they "believe in freedom of speech for everybody," including "permitting anyone to say anything at any time about our government or our country." Half said they believed in complete freedom, while 45% thought there should be limits.

George Gallup explained in his 1949 news release that the impetus for the follow-up poll was an anti-communism riot that occurred that year at an outdoor concert headlined by famed baritone singer and actor Paul Robeson. Robeson had become a political lightning rod over his close ties to the Soviet Union and his outspokenness on civil rights and a variety of other social justice issues.

When those who thought free speech had its limits were asked to name the conditions under which it should be curtailed, 45% mentioned situations in which the government was being undermined, threatened or slandered, and 12% mentioned lies or slander generally. Another 11% said free speech should be limited when the country is at war, and 10% said that communists and Nazis, specifically, should not be afforded free speech.

Under what conditions don't you believe in it (freedom of speech)?

These data can be found in Gallup Analytics.

Read more from the Gallup Vault.

See the original post here:
Gallup Vault: Tolerance of Free Speech Had Its Limits - Gallup

My critique this week of a free-speech watchdogs roster, ostensibly of efforts to silence speakers on college campuses because of their views, has drawn blood. The sponsor of the disinvitation database, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, struck back Tuesday to defend its work.

FIREs willingness to engage in debate, via an article by Ari Cohn, director of its individual rights defense program, is a commendable nod to its stated mission of defending freedom of speech and other such rights on campus. But Cohns response actually makes my case that its database, which encompasses 331 disinvitations of campus speakers since 2010, including 43 last year, is shallow, overly inclusive, and dependent on anecdotes that dont support its claim that freedom of speech on campus is in decline.

It is utterly illiberal to demand that anyone who would like to hear from the speaker not be allowed to do so, Cohn writes. Thats true, as far as it goes. But many of the cases FIRE includes in its roster dont involve demands to prevent speakers from speaking at an event or others from attending. As I pointed out in my original column, many involve simply protests or the airing of objections that themselves amount to expressions of free speech.

Lets examine Cohns defense.

First, Cohn takes issue with my point that even if the database did comprise every attempt to silence speakers or force them to withdraw, it represented a tiny percentage of the tens of thousands of speaking invitations issued every year by Americas more than 4,000 colleges. Therefore it cant serve as evidence of a trend toward more exclusion. While there may be 4,000 colleges and universities, he writes, the universe of schools to which controversial, big-name speakers are invited is likely significantly smaller.

That may be so, but FIREs universe is fairly inclusive. Its database includes big campuses like Berkeley and the University of Michigan, but also places like Earlham College of Indiana (enrollment 1,019) and Anna Maria College of Massachusetts (1,462). So whats the real size of the universe? Cohn doesnt say. Nor are all the targets appearing on his list big name speakers: They include state legislators, authors of self-published political screeds, and local activists unknown outside their homes and surrounding counties.

The bigger issue, however, lies with FIREs claim that its database tracks calls to silence or disinvite a speaker. Cohn writes that disinvitation teaches students the wrong lesson: that keeping anyone on campus from hearing views with which some people disagree, rather than the more difficult task of engaging in critical thinking and refuting those views, is an acceptable and successful tactic. The truth is that many of FIREs cited incidents are nothing of the kind.

I mentioned a couple in my original piece, including a protest against the joint appearance of former Vice President Joe Biden and former House Speaker John A. Boehner at Notre Dames 2016 commencement. FIRE listed the event but didnt cite any evidence of an effort to disinvite the speakers. Cohn defends the inclusion by arguing that some students wrote that they strongly objected to the invitations. Whether this is an implicit call for the revocation of the invitations is a matter upon which reasonable minds can disagree.

But there can be no disagreement about the letter Cohn cites. It says, We do not wish to endorse or refute either awardees worthiness to receive this honor, but simply call on dissenters of the Universitys decision to acknowledge the importance of all Catholic Social Teachings, not simply those they believe are the most important. In other words, it doesnt come close, even implicitly, to calling for disinvitation indeed, it explicitly disavows any such intention. Why is this episode on FIREs list?

There are other such examples. Appearances by former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright at Scripps College and Syracuse University made the database. But neither seemed to involve a call for disinviting her. At Scripps, her commencement appearance inspired a commentary in the campus newspaper about her supposed role in fostering genocide; but that free expression of opinion should hearten, not disturb, the people at FIRE. At Syracuse, FIREs evidence for disinvitation is a report of a small protest outside the hall while Albright was speaking inside. How is that a disinivitation attempt?

Cohn takes issue with my argument that commencement speakers should be distinguished from those invited to participate in a campus discussion or panel or give a substantive talk. My point was that a colleges invitation to address commencement confers an implied institutional imprimatur on the speakers career or views. Thats especially so when it comes packaged with an honorary degree, as is typically the case. Under the circumstances, the selection of a commencement speaker should be subject to the most vigorous debate and even reconsideration by the campus community.

Cohn writes, Commencement speakers are generally invited because they have a message to students that would be valuable as they move forward with their lives, often drawing upon their own histories and experiences. Uh-huh. Would that the average commencement keynote met this high standard. But Ive been to a few such events, and I know, as I bet Cohn does too, that his Pollyanna-ish statement could have come right out of a college press release.

Finally, Cohn disputes my assertion that a speakers fitness to appear on campus at all should be a legitimate topic of discussion, debate, and reconsideration. He writes: Those extending campus speaking invitations are surely tasked with determining from whom they would like to hear. Once the inviting party has determined that they would like to hear out a particular speaker, it is certainly not the place of others on campus to determine for them whether or not such a speaker is qualified.

Here he begs an important question. Tasked by whom? At many campuses, almost anyone can invite a speaker, provided that a free classroom or hall can be found for the event. Surely not everyone tendering an invitation is doing so in the name of the university. Judgments of whos qualified to speak at a campus venue are made all the time on virtually every campus. Why any one individuals decision to offer a platform to any speaker should necessarily be the last word, immune from criticism, objection, or revocation, is a mystery, and Cohn doesnt solve it.

Keeping an eye on efforts to suppress free speech on college campuses is a worthy calling. But FIREs assertions that such efforts are on the rise indeed, that they set a record in 2016 cant survive scrutiny, at least not based on the evidence it provides. Anecdotes can be useful, but not when they deflate at the slightest poking.

Keep up to date with Michael Hiltzik. Follow @hiltzikm on Twitter, see his Facebook page, or email michael.hiltzik@latimes.com.

Return to Michael Hiltzik's blog.

Read the original post:
'Political correctness' on campus: A free-speech watchdog defends its questionable evidence - Los Angeles Times

|

Posted: Mar 16, 2017 11:13 AM

In a simpler age, one major argument for a young scholar going to college was the exposure he or she would receive to a wide spectrum of viewpoints, vigorously and freely debated. Sadly, many institutions of higher learning now seem determined to protect students from free speech, especially if controversial views run counter to progressive orthodoxy.

Thus, a culture of censorship now grips many universities via such mechanisms as minuscule free-speech zones, restrictive speech codes, safe spaces for those taking umbrage to criticism (so-called snowflakes), mandatory diversity training, and speaker dis-invitations.

A nonprofit group that tracks threats to free speech in academe and often litigates in support of liberty is the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE). On February 7, FIRE released its first-ever survey of yet another illiberal technique for speech suppression: Bias Response Teams (BRTs). They work like this: College administrations actively invite students to report other students or professors whose speech they subjectively deem to be biased.

Comments by the snitches, who may remain anonymous, commonly concern political or social speech that is constitutionally protected. For example, a University of Northern Colorado professor found himself in a BRTs crosshairs in summer 2016 simply for suggesting in a classroom discussion that students consider opposing viewpoints. (He also commended to students a FIRE officials article on free speech.) The professor received an administrative warning that he could be more aggressively investigated if he continued to broach controversial subjects.

In addition to such interventions, transgressors can have reprimands placed in their records or even more explicit punishment, according to Adam Steinbaugh, a FIRE senior program officer. FIRE identified 232 colleges, both public and private, that use this fast-spreading method of stifling speech. Most of these Star Chamber entities have student-conduct administrators on board, but a shocking 42 percent of BRTs include law enforcement personnel. Thus, the idea of speech police has broken out beyond the fictional works of George Orwell.

At issue is not hate speech by deranged people deliberately seeking to foment violence. That kind of speech forfeits constitutional protection. At stake is the right to speak out on questions and issues of public importance, even in a provocative manner.

Can government compel universities to honor and protect the First Amendment right of free speech instead of regulating it virtually out of existence? Following the February 1 violent protest at the University of California-Berkeley that shut down an invited speaker, former Breitbart editor Milo Yiannopoulos, and caused $100,000 of property damage, President Donald Trump tweeted NO FEDERAL FUNDS? as a possible penalty for universities disrespecting free speech. But would it really be a good idea to make Washington, DC the omniscient enforcer of free expression on all campuses across the land?

The First Amendment applies to state legislatures and public colleges and universities through the 14th Amendment. Given that reality, a solution consistent with federalism might well lie in each states consideration of a Campus Free Speech Act (CFSA), such as the one the Goldwater Institute has prepared with the help of eminent scholars.

Some of CFSAs key points, as outlined by one of its draftersStanley Kurtz, of the Ethics and Public Policy Centerinclude: require public universities to adopt a declaration of the centrality of free speech; nullify all speech codes; declare campus podiums open to all speakers invited by student organizations or faculty members; forbid disruptions of invited speakers and punish disruptors; prevent the designation of limited free speech zones; and require university stewards to adhere to policies of institutional neutrality on public-policy controversies of the day (lest students and professors disagreeing with official policy be under heavy pressure to conform).

In a February 1 article for the James G. Martin Center for Academic Renewal, Kurtz strongly criticized the idea of letting those who shout down campus speakers escape unpunished: Legitimate protest must of course be permitted and protected. Yet interrupting, physically assaulting, or shouting down speakers is tyranny, pure and simple and cannot be tolerated by any community that cherishes and protects free expression.

Quoting a 1929 opinion by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes that defined genuine freedom as freedom for the thought that we hate, Kurtz added this cogent thought: Far from being license, true freedom is an act of self-control, a refusal to physically extinguish even the speech we abhor. Freedom is a refusal to attack our opponents with everything weve got. Campus demonstrators have mistakenly elevated what they think of as sensitivity and civility over the principle of free expression. Yet the truth is, freedom of speech itself is the ultimate act of civility.

Legislatures taking this proposed measure under consideration might well seek to improve upon it or develop their own approaches. Private universities would not be subject to state controls; however, their trustees could draw many ideas for application to their campuses, such as retooling freshman orientation to ensure students know from the outset that the free and respectful exchange of competing ideas will be central to their learning experience.

The rest is here:
Entire Campus Should Be Safe Space for Free Speech - Townhall